/7y 


O  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  'v'' 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


AgJicw  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


SCO 


3r(XAA^w<L^ 


<,r*~^^v>-«^^  4       C-^ft-AA^JO-f- 


V 


; 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tlieological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.arcliive.Qrg/details/scripturallawofbOOturn 


SOME  NOTICES  OP  THE  WORK. 


This  work,  before  being  published,  was  submitted  for  examination 
to  some  of  our  most  able  and  judicious  brethren  in  the  denomination. 
Among  the  expressions  of  views  respecting  its  character  and  the  effect 
to  be  anticipated  from  its  publication,  are  the  following : 

Dr.  Williams  of  New  York  testifies  to  "  the  clear  and  forcible  char- 
acter of  the  work,  to  the  originality  which  is  given  to  a  discussion, 
which,  from  the  number  and  ability  of  those  who  have  conducted  it, 
might  seem  trite, — to  the  sustained  spirit  of  Christian  moderation  and 
kindness  which  renders  the  management  of  the  subject  both  more 
winning  and  more  cogent." 

Dr.  Dowling  of  New  York,  having  examined  several  of  the  first  sec- 
tions states,  that,  although  he  was  a  little  incredulous  at  first  respect- 
ing the  necessity  for  another  treatise  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  a  little 
examination  had  convinced  him  that  "  there  might  be  even  a  new 
work  on  Baptism,  without  treading  in  the  well  worn  track  so  long  and 
so  often  beaten  by  others," — and  adds,  "  The  fact  that  you  have  made 
the  general  and  symbolic  design  of  the  ordinance  the  starting  point 
in  your  argument,  and  have  treated  this  part  of  the  subject  in  a  man- 
ner so  thorough,  so  original,  and  so  striking,  has  invested  your  work 
in  my  own  mind  with  a  degree  of  interest  I  could  hardly  have  sup- 
posed I  should  feel  in  a  new  work  on  this  subject. — I  believe  that 
your  work  when  published  cannot  but  prove  an  acceptable  oflering  to 
all  the  thinking  and  intelligent  of  our  denomination,  while  its  candor 
and  fairness  will,  to  say  the  least,  secure  it  a  respectful  consideration 
from  our  brethren  of  other  denominations." 

Prof.  Raymond  of  Madison  University,  says,  "  I  have  no  hesitation 
in  saying  that  I  believe  it  will  prove  (if  published)  a  valuable  contri- 
bution to  the  literature  of  tliis  important  subject."  He  considers 
"  the  general  plan  as  equally  original  and  striking  " — "  the  question  is 
considered  in  some  points  of  light  quite  new  " — "  many  familiar  argu- 
ments are  presented  with  new  illustrations  and  enhanced  force" — "the 
most  recent  phases  of  pedobaptism  receive  an  appropriate  share  of 
attention  " — ''  and  the  style  of  reasoning,"  he  adds,  "  adopted  in  the 
portions  I  have  read,  appears  to  me  eminently  adapted  to  meet  diffi- 
culties in  the  minds  of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  too  generally  over- 
looked by  our  writers,  or  not  treated  with  the  respect  due,  if  not  to  the 


diflculties  themselves,  to  the  minds  which  are  embarrassed  by  them. 
I  sincerely  hope  that  the  book  will  be  published,  and  find  its  way  into 
the  hands,  not  merely  of  Baptists,  but  of  intelligent  and  candid  men  in 
other  denominations  ;  who  will  see  that  the  Baptist  argument,  so  far 
from  being  exhausted,  is  only  beginning  to  be  developed." 

To  omit  particular  reference  to  communications  from  several  other 
brethren,  who  express  themselves  in  language  equally  commendatory — 
who  speak  of  "  the  candor,  accuracy,  and  clearness  of  the  discussion 
of  the  points  embraced  " — of  "  the  novel  and  eminently  scriptural 
character  of  the  argument  " — of  the  work  as  exhibiting  "  the  entire 
harmony  of  the  scriptures  in  regard  to  the  design,  form,  and  subjects 
of  baptism" — of  "  its  peculiarity  in  showing  not  only  that  the  passages 
relied  upon  for  the  support  of  Pedobaptism  fail  of  establishing  it,  but 
that  they  all  may  be  urged  in  favor  of  the  opposite  position," — the 
following  will  suffice. 

"  The  undersigned  have  examined  with  a  high  degree  of  satisfaction 
a  treatise  on  the  subject  of  baptism  prepared  by  Rev.  Edmund  Turney, 
pastor  of  the  Baptist  church  in  Granville,  Ohio.  During  the  short 
time  it  remained  in  our  hands  each  of  its  parts  could  be  read  only  by 
some  one  of  our  number  :  but  in  this  way  the  whole  [this  refers  to  the 
first  four  chapters,]  has  been  carefully  examined.  We  hesitate  not  to 
say,  that  we  know  of  no  treatise  on  the  same  subject  better  adapted 
to  be  useful,  and  none  which  more  clearly  and  happily  illustrates 
the  scriptural  view  of  the  design  and  nature  of  Christian  baptism. 
The  spirit  of  candor  and  impartiality  in  which  it  is  written,  is  emi- 
nently adapted  to  commend  its  arguments  to  the  candid  consideration 
of  all  who  are  conscientiously  desirous  of  obtaining  correct  views  of 
the  ordinances  of  the  gospel.  We  think  the  work  ought  to  be  pub- 
lished, and  that  great  good  may  be  expected  from  its  extensive  circu- 
lation." 

J.  S.  Maginnis, 

T.    J.    CONANT, 

Hamilton,  N.  Y,  July  22,  1846.  Geo.  W.  Eaton. 

Rev.  W.  W.  Everts,  pastor  of  the  Laight  St.  Baptist  Church,  New 
York,  speaking  of  the  work,  says,  "  It  developes  the  scripture  doc- 
trine of  Baptism,  not  merely  by  critical  notices  of  particular  passages, 
but  by  a  learned,  able,  and  exegetical  examination  of  the  entire  har- 
mony of  the  Scriptures  in  regard  to  the  design,  form,  and  subjects  of 
this  ordinance. 

"  Its  allusions  to  classical  and  ecclesiastical  writers  evince  the  accu- 
racy and  candor  of  the  Christian  scholar.  But  its  primary,  earnest, 
and  constant  appeal  is  to  '  the  law  and  the  testimony ;'  and  it  aims  to 
exhibit,  not  the  traditional  or  ecclesiastical,  but  the  scriptural  law  of 
baptism. 


"  The  ability  and  candor  with  which  it  is  written,  as  well  as  the 
somewhat  novel,  and  eminently  scriptural  character  of  its  arguments, 
will,  we  believe,  secure  to  this  treatise  a  permanent  and  growing 
reputation." 

Rev.  Elisha  Tucker,  pastor  of  the  Oliver  St.  Baptist  Church,  New 
York,  says,  "I  have,  as  you  suggested,  examined  with  some  care  por- 
tions of  your  work  on  baptism ;  and  although  I  commenced  with  much 
of  'doubtful  disputation,'  as  to  the  propriety  of  recommending  for 
the  press  another  work  on  a  subject  which  has  been  already  so  often 
and  so  ably  discussed  ;  yet  I  must  say,  that  the  plain,  and  yet  forcible 
manner  in  which  you  have  illustrated  the  design  and  nature  of  the 
ordinance,  together  with  the  Christian  spirit  in  which  you  meet  the 
objections  of  Pedobaptists,  has  overcome  all  my  scruples ;  and  with 
great  pleasure  I  recommend  your  work  to  the  careful  examination  of 
the  disciples  of  Christ." 

Rev.  E.  E.  L.  Taylor,  pastor  of  the  Pierpont  St.  Baptist  Church, 
Brooklyn, says,  "My  examination  of  your  work  has  convinced  me  that 
there  indeed  remains,  even  in  this  old  and  well  cultivated  field  of  con- 
troversy, '  much  land  to  be  possessed.'  I  was  struck  with  the  dexter- 
ity with  which  you  have  wrested  from  the  Pedobaptist,  every  weap- 
on (except  tradition,)  on  which  he  relies  to  defend  his  cause,  and  have 
applied  the  same  in  effecting  his  defeat.  And  you  have  done  this,  I 
am  pleased  to  observe,  not  in  the  style  and  spirit  of  the  controver- 
sialist eager  for  victory  merely  ,but  of  one  candidly  and  prayerfully  in- 
quiring after  truth.  I  most  heartily  recommend  your  work  as  being 
eminently  adapted  to  produce  conviction  on  the  subject  of  which  it 
treats." 

Prof.  A.  C.  Kendrick,  of  Madison  University,  referring  to  the  sec- 
tion on  "the  meaning  of  the  word,"  says,  "  The  manuscript  which 
you  left  with  me  I  attentively  perused, — and  was  much  gratified  with 
the  candor,  accuracy,  and  clearness  of  the  discussion  of  the  topics 
embraced." 

GENERAL  PLAN  OF  THE  WORK. 

The  general  plan  and  characteristics  of  the  work  may  be  learned 
from  the  Preface  and  Introduction  in  connexion  with  the  table  of  con- 
tents. It  will,  however,  be  impossible  to  obtain  a  fully  adequate  idea 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  subject  is  treated,  the  light  in  which 
the  several  points  embraced  are  presented,  the  nature  and  style  of 
argumentation  adopted  in  the  different  sections,  the  various  respects 
in  which  pedobaptism  is  shown  to  be  without  foundation  and  contrary 
to  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  without  a  somewhat  general 
and  full  examination  of  the  work.  The  sections,  in  the  first  three 
chapters,  which  more  particularly  claim  attention,  are,  perhaps,  sec- 


tions  2,  and  4  of  chapter  I — sections  1,  2,  and  3  of  chapter  II — sec- 
tions 2,  5,  7,  8  and  11  of  chapter  III. 

Section  9,  of  chapter  III,  although  brief,  contains  a  refutation  of 
the  argument  for  pedobaptism  drawn  from  tlie  salvation  of  infants, 
which  can  hardly  fail  to  be  regarded  as  perfectly  decisive  by  every 
candid  mind. 

Section  12,  of  chapter  III,  is  designed  to  meet  an  argument  which 
in  the  opinion  of  the  author,  is  far  more  effective  witli  pedobaptists, 
than  tiic  advocates  of  believers'  baptism  are  usually  aware,  and  which 
is  indebted  for  its  effect,  not  to  its  intrinsic  force,  but  chiefly  to  the 
obscurity  in  which  the  point  to  which  it  relates,  has  been  left. 

Section  14,  which  treats  of"  the  evils  of  infant  baptism,"  although 
not  particularly  alluded  to  in  the  preface,  is,  perhaps,  as  well  adapted 
to  leave  on  many  minds  an  impression  unfavorable  to  pedobaptism,  as 
any  other  part  of  the  work. 

In  chapter  IV,  advantage  is  taken  of  the  points  established  in  the 
preceding  sections,  and  an  appeal  made  to  the  consciences  of  pedo- 
baptists and  inquirers,  designed  to  be  if  possible,  effective. 

The  argument  of  chapter  V,  is  constructed  with  a  design  to  meet, 
not  only  the  objection  of  pedobaptists,  but  more  especially  the  posi- 
tion assumed  by  the  Free  Will  Baptists,  and  which  the  feeliiigs  of 
some  in  our  own  churches  would  lead  them  to  adopt.  It  is  designed 
to  show  the  folly  and  inconsistency  of  departing  from  our  present 
practice. 

The  peculiarity  of  the  arguments  by  which  Mr.  Beecher's  positions 
are  refuted,  is  stated  in  the  preface.  Some  points  which  could  not  well 
be  introduced  into  the  body  of  the  work  have  been  considered  in  note 
2,  of  the  appendix.  It  has  been  the  design  of  the  author,  by  arguments 
whose  appositness  and  force  would  be  generally  perceived  and  felt, 
to  show  the  utter  fallacy  of  his  entire  theory. 

A  refutation  of  pedobaptism  has  involved  a  refutation  of  the  anti- 
christian  dogma  which  may  to  a  great  extent  be  regarded  as  the  found- 
ation of  infant  baptism,  to  wit,  baptismal  regeneration,  and  which 
is  now  defended  under  tlie  name  of  Campbellism.  The  whole  argu- 
ment in  chapters  I,  III  and  IV  is  adapted  to  establish  the  position  that 
no  one  can  be  properly  baptised  until  he  is  regenerated.  The  argu- 
ments by  which  baptismal  regeneration  is  usually  defended,  are  direct- 
ly refuted  in  the  exposition  of  the  passages,  John  3:5;  Acts.  2:  38; 
22:  16;  1  Peter,  3:  21;  including  three  of  the  Notes  in  the  Ap- 
pendix. 

It  has  been  the  aim  of  the  author,  so  to  present  the  various  points 
discussed,  as,  if  possible,  to  produce  conviction — not  merely  to  place 
his  arguments  on  such  a  ground  that  they  cannot  be  refuted,  but  so 
to  arrange  and  exhibit  them  that  their  force  will  be  perceived  and 
Jelt.  How  far  he  has  succeeded  in  this,  or  how  far  this  feature  in  the 
work,  may  be  regarded  as  a  peculiar  recommendation,  others  must 
judge. 

The  author  has  endeavored  to  make  it  a  work  adapted  for  general 
circulation.  Whether  it  will  ever  obtain  an  "extensive  circulation" 
will  depend  much  upon  the  manner  in  which  it  is  received;  or  how 
"  great  good"  may  be  experienced  from  such  a  circulation,  is  yet  to 
be  determined. 

A  very  few  slight  typographical  errors  (in  the  first  four  chapters) 
have  escaped  unnoticed, — none,  however,  that  will  afiect  the  sense,  or 
that  may  not  easily  be  corrected  by  the  reader. 


^-d^^A.'^^      ?V\P{1^ 


THE 


SCRIPTURAL  LAW  OF  BAPTISM, 


DESIGN    OF  BAPTISM 
Presented  and  applied, 

LEADING    TO    AN    EXAMINATION    OF 

ITS  FORM,  ITS  SUBJECTS,  ITS  AUTHORITY, 

AND 

ITS  RELATIVE  POSITION. 


J 


BY  EDMUNIXTURNEY, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  FIRST  BAPTIST  CHCRCU,  GRANVILLE,    OHIO. 


HARTFORD : 

PUBLISHED  BY  ROBINS  &  SMITH, 

1847. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1847,  by 
EDMUND  TURNEY, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Connecticut. 


PREFACE. 


The  general  plan  of  the  following  treatise  was  suggested  to 
the  author  by  a  series  of  discourses  delivered  by  him  in  1841, 
before  the  South  Baptist  Church  in  Hartford,  Conn.  It  was  at 
first  his  intention  simply  to  prepare  a  small  work  on  the  Design 
of  baptism,  including  an  exhibition  of  its  relation  to  proper 
views  of  the  form,  the  subjects,  the  authority,  and  the  relative 
position  of  the  ordinance.  The  intimate  connexion  of  the  sub- 
ject with  other  points  of  interest  and  importance  pertaining  to 
the  nature  and  relations  of  baptism,  subsequently  led  to  the 
determination  to  extend  somewhat  the  original  plan ;  and  the 
work  was  gradually  expanded  into  its  present  form.  It  is  now 
given  to  the  public  with  the  hope  that  it  will  not  be  deemed  a 
work  of  supererogation.  In  its  preparation  the  author  has  acted 
under  the  conviction,  that,  notwithstanding  the  numerous  valua- 
ble works  on  baptism  already  published,  there  is  in  this  field  of 
Christian  investigation,  "  much  land  yet  to  be  possessed ;'' 
while  in  many  cases,  even  the  most  familiar  facts  may  be  pre- 
sented with  increased  impressiveness  and  effect.  He  believes  it 
will  be  found  upon  examination  that  a  comparatively  small  por- 
tion of  the  work  is  a  repetition  of  the  arguments  presented  by 
other  authors.  He  has  endeavored,  it  is  true,  to  introduce 
these  arguments  sufficiently  to  give  completeness  to  the  work, — 
to  constitute  it,  in  fact,  a  complete  vianual  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism. But  this  object  being  secured,  he  has  confined  his  atten- 
tion chiefly  to  the  presentation  of  new  facts  and  illustrations,  or 
the  exhibition  of  former  ones  in  new  points  of  hght. 

In  his  mode  of  argumentation  he  has  seldom  assumed  a  de- 
fensive position.  By  appealing  to  facts  not  so  much  for  the 
purpose  of  removing  objections,  as  of  proving  the  opposite  po- 
sitions, he  has  aimed  at  accomplishing  the  twofold  object,  of 
showing  that  these  facts  when  used  in  the  defence  of  error,  are 
actually  misapplied,  and  of  securing  their  full  force  in  establislv- 


IV  PREFACE. 

ing  the  truth.  He  has, — if  the  figure  may  be  introduced  with- 
out suggesting  the  existence  of  a  warlike  spirit,  than  which 
nothing,  it  is  believed,  is  more  at  variance  with  the  character 
and  spirit  of  the  work, — he  has  taken  occasion  in  relation  to 
most  of  the  topics  discussed,  to  seize  the  strong  holds  of  the 
opponents,  and  to  turn  their  chosen  implements  of  defence  or 
attack  to  the  demolition  of  their  own  system,  and  the  support  of 
the  opposite  cause.  For  illustration  of  this  remark  relerence  is 
made  to  the  sections,  in  which  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
design  of  baptism,  is  stated  and  applied ;  in  which  the  facts  per- 
taining to  the  history  of  infant  baptism  are  presented  ;  in  which 
the  passages  relating  to  the  case  of  little  children,  the  baptism 
of  households,  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  or  natural  relation- 
ship to  the  people  of  God,  or  the  privileges  pertaining  to  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  are  examined.  This  method  of  argument- 
ation has  given  occasion  for  showing  that  pedobaplism  is  not 
merely  without  scriptural  foundation,  but  is  actually  refuted  by 
the  sacred  writers.  About  one-iburth  part  of  the  entire  work  is 
devoted  to  the  illustration  of  the  specific  point,  that  the  New 
Testament  expressly  sets  aside  the  only  ground  on  which  the 
baptism  of  infants  is,  or  can  be  defended,  and  that  consequently 
their  right  to  be  admitted  to  the  ordinance  is  positively  denied. 
The  sections,  likewise,  in  whicli  the  historical  argument  for 
infant  baptism  is  considered,  are  introduced,  not  so  much  to  show 
that  there  is  no  ground  for  believing  the  practice  to  be  of  apos- 
tolic origin,  as  to  prove  directly  that  it  did  not  originate  with  the 
apostles,  and  to  explain  the  causes  which  led  to  its  introduction 
at  a  later  period. 

Sections  6  and  7  of  Chapter  III.  in  which  the  arguments  for 
pedobaptism  drawn  from  the  covenant  of  circumci.sion,  and  the 
supposed  identity  of  the  Christian  church  and  the  Jewish  theo- 
cracy, is  examined  somewhat  at  length,  are  mainly  expositions 
of  Rom.  11:  11-32,  and  4:  9-18,  and  were  originally  published 
as  articles  in  the  Christian  Review;  which  will  sufficiently  ac- 
count for  the  particular  form  in  which  the  points  discussed,  are 
presented. 

In  Sect.  3,  Chap.  II.  as  in  several  sections  pertaining  to  the 
eignificancy  of  baptism,  will  be  found  a  refutation  of  the  views 
advanced  by  President  Beecher  in  his  articles  on  Baptism  in  the 
Biblical  Repository.    The  author,  in  addition  to  showing  that 


PREFACE.  V 

Mr.  Beecher  has  placed  the  decision  of  the  point  under  examin- 
ation on  a  false  issue,  has  endeavored  to  meet  his  positions  on 
his  own  ground,  and  to  expose  their  fallacy  by  proof  which  he 
himself  admits  must  be,  in  case  it  can  be  adduced,  decisive. 

The  Chapter  on  what  is  designated,  for  lack  of  a  more  appro" 
priateterm,  the  authority  of  baptism,  is  commended  to  the  can- 
did attention  of  all  Christians  who  have  not  been  immersed  on 
profession  of  their  faith  in  Christ,  especially  the  members  of 
Pedobaptist  churches. 

The  Chapter  on  the  relative  position  ofbaptisiu,  consists 
chiefly  in  an  exhibition  of  the  scriptural  terms  of  admission  to 
the  Lord's  supper.  The  connexion  of  baptism  and  church  mem_ 
bership  with  church  privileges,  is  presented  as  fully  as  the  limits 
of  the  work  seemed  to  allow,  or,  perhaps,  the  nature  of  the  case, 
really  to  demand. 

Several  points  claiming  examination  which  could  not  Avell  be 
introduced  into  the  body  of  the  work,  have  been  discussed  in  the 
form  of  Notes  in  an  Appendix.  Attention  is  called  particularly 
to  the  examination  of  the  figure,  "  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

In  his  preparation  of  the  work  the  author,  while  he  has  aimed 
at  presenting  his  positions  with  force  and  earnestness,  has  en- 
deavored to  treat  the  views  of  his  opponents  with  courtesy  and 
fairness,  and  to  maintain  throughout  the  discussion  a  proper 
degree  of  christian  candor  and  kindness.  With  the  hope  that 
the  same  spirit  will  be  cherished  in  its  reception  and  perusal,  it 
is  now  sent  forth  to  the  public.  Should  it  be  effectual  in  aiding 
to  diffuse  just  views  of  Christian  baptism  in  its  various  aspects 
and  relations,  and  to  extend  a  proper  regard  for  its  authority, 
the  object  contemplated  in  its  preparation  will  be  accomplished. 

Granville,  Nov.  1846. 

Errata, — On  page  154,  tenth  line  from  the  top,  for  "  temporal" 
read  "  temporary." 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction,  •        .         .         ,  13 

CHAPTER    I. 
THE  DESIGN  OF  BAPTISM. 

Section  I. 
Its  general  design, 19 

Section  II, 
Its  symbolical  import — Remarks  on  the  nature  of  symbolical 

institutions, 24 

Section   III. 
Baptism  a  symbol  of  the  washing  away  of  sin,  ...  25 

Section  IV. 
Baptism  not  a  symbol  specifically  of  purification,     ...  28 

Section  V. 
Baptism  a  symbol  of  spiritual  death  and  resurrection,      .        .  33 

Section  VI. 
The  significancy  of  baptism  as  referring  to  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ, 37 

CHAPTER    II. 
THE  FORM  OF  BAPTISM.       • 
Section  I. 
The  design  of  baptism  answered  only  by  immersion.     Its  entire 
significancy  must  be  preserved, 40 

Section  II. 
No  part  of  the  significancy  of  baptism  preserved  in  sprinkling,         44 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

Section  III. 

Page 
The  meaning  of  the  word,        >...',,.  53 

Section  IV. 

Immersion  the  practice  of  the  apostles  and  primitive  Christians,        66 

CHAPTER   III. 
THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 
Section  I. 
Believers  shown  to  be  the  only  proper  subjects  of  baptism  by  its 

design, 72 

Section  II. 
Infant  baptism  opposed  to  the  nature  and  design  of  the  gospel 

dispensation, .  74 

Section  III. 
The  same  argument  continued — An  examination  of  passages  in 

which  the  disciples  of  Christ  are  compared  to  little  children,         76 

Section   IV. 
The  direct  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  respecting  the 

qualifications  necessary  for  baptism  and  church  membership,         84 

Section  V. 
Pedobaptism  directly  refuted  by  the  New  Testament,       .         .  85 

Section  VI. 
The  same  argument  continued — An  examination  of  Rom.  xi: 

11-32, 92 

Section  VII. 
The  same  argument  continued — An  examination  of  Rom.  iv  : 
9-lS — The  covenant  of  circumcision  not  of  force   in   the 

Christian  church, 107 

Section  VIII. 
The  same  argument  continued— Baptism  itself  appealed  to  in 
refutation  of  pedobaptism,  120 


CONTENTS.  IX 

Section  IX. 

Page 
The  irrelevancy  of  the  argument  for  pedobaptism  drawn  from 

the  salvation  of  infants, 127 

Section  X. 
The  baptism  of  believers  the  exclusive  practice  of  the  apostles 
and  primitive  Christians — The  testimony  of  the  New  Testa- 
mentj  .        • 130 

Section  XI. 
Infant  baptism  shown  to  be  not  of  apostolic  origin  from  the 
history  of  the  church, 136 

Section  XII. 
The  causes  which  led  to  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism 
explained, 147 

Section  XIII. 
A  general  and  connected  view  of  the  arguments  presented  in 
the  preceding  sections, 150 

Section   XIV. 
The  evils  of  infant  baptism, 153 

CHAPTER   IV. 
THE  AUTHORITY  OF  BAPTISM, 
or 
The  duty  of  believers  in  Christ  to  be  baptized  on  profession  of 
their  faith,  161 

CHAPTER   V. 
THE  RELATIVE  POSITION  OF  BAPTISM, 

•  or 

The  scriptural  terms  of  admission  to  the  Lord's  supper,  .         172 

The  proper  form  of  government  for  the  churches  of  Christ,      .        180 


j:  CONTENTS. 

APPENDIX. 

Page 

Note  A— Remarks  on  1  Pet.  3:  21, 183 

B— Remarks  on  Acts  2  :  38, 1S4 

C— Import  of  the  figure,  "  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  185 

D — Remarks  on  the  meaning  of  /ffanrifo),        .        .        .  1S8 
E — Bonri^oj  used  by  the  Christian  Fathers  in  the  sense, 

to  immerse,              19*^ 

F— Import  of  the  phrase,  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"          .  194 

G — Remarks  on  John  3 :  5, 195 

H— Exposition  of  1  Cor.  7  :  14, 196 

I — Examination  of  passages  adduced  in  defence  of  infant 

baptism, 190 

J— Remarks  on  Acts  19:  1-7,         .        .        .  '     .        .  200 


k 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  an  examination  of  the  subject  of  Ciiristian  Bap- 
tism our  first  inquiry  naturally  is,  What  do  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  1  As  in  all  the  positive  institutions  of  re- 
ligion, our  only  reason  for  action  is  the  revealed  will 
of  the  Lawgiver.  What  does  he  require  ?  Of  whom 
does  he  require  it?  For  what  purpose  is  it  to  be  per- 
formed ?  are  questions  for  an  answer  to  which  we 
must  apply  directly  to  the  wore!  of  God.  And  the 
order  in  which  we  have  stated  them  is  evidently  the 
most  natural  in  which  they  are  suggested  to  our  minds. 
First,  what  is  the  nature  of  the  requirement?  What 
is  the  act  to  be  performed  ?  In  determining  this  ques- 
tion, we  are  not  to  inquire,  primarily,  what  seems  to 
us  the  most  reasonable — what  accords  best  Avith  our 
own  views  of  fitness  or  propriety — what  is,  in  our  appre- 
hension, best  adapted  to  answer  the  end  intended]  We 
believe,  indeed,  it  will  be  found,  upon  examination, 
that  the  act  required  in  Christian  baptism,  is  not  only 
reasonable,  but  peculiarly  appropriate  and  expressive  ; 
that  it,  in  fact,  strikingly  illustrates  the  wisdom  of  the 
Master  in  selecting  it.  But  it  is  not  on  this  ground 
that  we  are  to  ascertain  originally  what  is  duty.  Our 
only  appropriate  inquiry  is.  What  has  Christ  enjoined? 
As  with  respect  to  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper,  we 
learn  his  will  from  the  terms  of  enactment,  "  Take, 
eat — drink  ye  all  of  it,"  and  nothing  is  regarded  as 

2 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

obedience  but  the  performance  of  these  acts;  so  in 
baptism,  we  arc  to  ascertain  what  is  the  act  required 
by  referring  to  the  import  of  the  terms  in  which  it  is 
enjoined.  And  finding  that  this  act  was  actually  ob- 
served as  baptism,  under  the  sanction  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  we  may  feel  doubly  assured  that  we  have 
not  mistaken  his  will. 

Having  thus  learned  what  is  the  nature  of  the  require- 
ment, our  next  appropriate  inquiry  is,  On  whom  do  the 
Scriptures  teach  us  this  requirement  is  binding?  As 
in  instituting  the  Supper,  our  Lord  left  it  to  be  obser- 
ved by  his  church  ;  as  among  the  prescribed  requisites, 
the  observants  are  supposed,  for  example,  to  be  capa- 
ble of  "discerning  the  Lord's  body,"  and  to  be  "  parta- 
kers" of  the  thing  represented,  the  Bread  of  life,  see  1 
Cor.,  10:  16,  17,11;  so  in  baptism,  it  might  reasonably 
be  inferred  that  its  observance  would  devolve  on  those 
possessing  certain  qualifications:  and  to  ascertain  what 
these  qualifications  are,  we  must  refer  directly  to  the 
teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  These  questions 
being  decided,  we  are  prepared  to  inquire.  For  what 
purpose  is  baptism  enjoined  ?     What  is  its  design  1 

This,  we  say,  is  the  most  natural  order  of  treating 
these  several  points.  There  are  reasons,  however,  wh)^, 
in  an  extended  examination  of  the  subject,  we  should 
partly  reverse  this  order,  and  begin  with  the  inquiry, 
What  is  the  design  of  baptism  ?  Among  these  reasons 
we  notice  particularly  the  position  very  generally  as- 
sumed by  Pedobaptists  at  the  present  day  in  respect  to 
baptism,  to  wit — that  in  ascertaining  the  will  of  Christ 
we  must  rely,  not  so  much  upon  the  import  of  the  terms 
employed  in  instituting  the  ordinance,  and  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apostles  in  its  observance,  as  upon  a  right 
conception  of  its  design  :  and  any  thing,  it  is  conten- 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

ded,that  will  fulfill  its  design  maybe  regarded  as  obe- 
dience. While  we  utterly  discard  the  principle  invol- 
ved in  this  position,  we  may  find  an  advantage  in  ac- 
comodating our  course  of  argumentation  to  the  posi- 
tion as  actually  assumed.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
much  of  the  error  and  confusion  of  sentiment  preva- 
lent with  respect  to  baptism  in  general,  arises  from 
erroneous  views  of  its  design.  Let  its  design  be  fully 
understood  and  appreciated,  and  several  points  per- 
taining to  its  nature,  its  efficacy,  and  its  importance, 
will,  even  without  finther  investigation,  be  decided. 

1.  It  will  lead  to  a  satisfactory  determination  of  the 
identical  point  alluded  to  in  our  foregoing  remarks — 
what  is  baptism  ?  It  will  at  least  teach  us  what  bap- 
tism is  not ;  and  will  thus  enable  us  to  decide  which, 
among  several  transactions  designated  baptism,  is  to 
be  adopted;  and  that  too,  on  grounds,  which,  if  sus- 
tained, are  admitted,  even  by  Pedobaptists,  to  be  deci- 
sive. For  whatever  may  be  their  views  of  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  the  import  of  the  terms  of  enact- 
ment, and  the  practice  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  they  readily  acknowledge  that  nothing  can 
be  valid  baptism  that  fails  of  fulfilling  its  design. 
Hence  should  it  appear  that  this  design  can  be  met 
only  by  the  act  enjoined,  there  will  be  twofold  reason 
for  adhering  strictly  to  its  observance. 

We  may  pursue  the  same  process  in  an  examination 
respecting  the  subjects,  the  authority,  and  the  relative 
position  of  the  ordinance,  and  having  arrived,  on  this 
single  ground,  at  a  satisfactory  conclusion  on  each  of 
these  points,  we  may  introduce  the  other  arguments 
pertaining  to  the  subject,  as  corroborative  of  the  same 
positions.  By  this  plan,  while  the  harmony  between 
the  design  of  baptism  and  the  express  teaching  of  the 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

New  Testament  respecting  its  nature  and  claims,  will 
become  more  fully  apparent,  the  whole  subject  will, 
we  trust,  be  presented  in  a  more  striking  and  impress- 
ive light. 

2.  A  proper  consideration  of  the  design  of  baptism 
will  tend  to  correct  extravagant  views  of  its  efficacy  or 
effects.  The  idea  that  baptism  is  essential  to  salvation, 
or  is  efficacious  in  procuring  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  or 
is  a  means  of  regeneration  and  introduction  into  a  state 
of  grace,  could  have  originated  only  in  erroneous  or 
defective  views  of  its  design.  To  the  same  cause 
must  be  ascribed  chiefly  its  continued  prevalence.  A 
right  conception  of  the  object  for  which  baptism  was 
appointed,  not  only  does  not  embrace,  nor  even  sug- 
gest, the  idea  of  baptismal  regeneration  or  purification  ; 
it  absolutely  precludes  its  indulgence.  Let  the  relation 
between  the  profession  made  in  baptism,  and  the  facts 
professed,  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  be  viewed 
in  its  proper  light,  and  all  ground  for  the  support  of 
this  anti-christian  dogma,  so  fruitful  of  evil  consequen- 
ces, is  removed. 

3.  The  design  of  baptism,  duly  considered,  serves 
to  show  its  importance,  as  a  divine  requirement,  and  an 
ordinance  of  the  gospel.  While,  on  the  one  hand, 
extravagant  views  of  its  efficacy  have  been,  and  are 
still,  widely  entertained,  another  error  into  which 
Christians  at  the  present  day  are  equally  liable  to  fall, 
consists  in  a  want  of  appreciating  its  importance,  or 
properly  regarding  its  authority.  It  is  very  generally 
viewed  simply  as  an  external  rite,  the  observance  of 
which  is  to  be  regulated  mainly  by  the  feelings  or 
convenience  of  those  on  whom  it  is  enjoined — a  cere- 
mony which  may  be,  at  least,  neglected  by  them  with- 
out any  serious  dereliction  of  duty,  or  unhappy  conse- 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

quences  either  to  themselves  or  the  church.  Hence  the 
indifference  manifested  with  regard  to  all  questions 
relating  to  its  right  observance,  and  the  difficulty  expe- 
rienced in  efforts  to  impress  its  claims  upon  the  con- 
science. The  remedy  for  this  lies  in  a  proper  appre- 
ciation of  its  design.  Its  importance,  aside  from  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  divine  requirement,  depends  on  the 
importance  of  the  end  it  was  designed  to  accomplish. 
Let  this  be  viewed  in  its  true  light,  and  baptism  will 
cease  to  be  regarded  simply  as  a  question  about  forms 
and  external  rites  which  are  mere  appendages  to  the 
Christian  system.  Let  its  connexion  with  a  proper  pro- 
fession of  religion,  its  character  as  a  standing  memorial 
of  the  great  facts  which  -lie  at  the  foundation  of  the 
gospel  scheme,  the  purpose  it  was  designed  to  serve, 
and  the  influence  it  aciually  exerts,  in  the  promotion 
of  personal  piety,  and  in  the  preservation  and  exten- 
sion of  an  operative  Christianity  in  the  world,  be  prop- 
erly appreciated,  and  not  only  would  its  observance  be 
effectually  enforced,  but  the  whole  subject  relating  to 
its  nature  and  position,  would  be  invested  with  new 
and  peculiar  interest,  and  baptism  would  once  more 
be  restored  to  the  place  in  the  estimation  of  Christians* 
which  it  occupies  in  the  New  Testament. 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE     DESIGN      OF      BAPTISM. 

SECTION  I. 

ITS    GENERAL    DESIGN. 

The  general  design  of  baptism  is  a   formal  and 

PRACTICAL    profession    OF    THE     CHRISTIAN    RELIGION. 

When  properly  observed  it  is  a  declaration  on  the  part 
of  the  subject  that  in  the  exercise  of  faith  and  submis- 
sion he  has  embraced  the  gospel ;  that  he  has  received 
Christ  as  his  Saviour  and  Sovereign,  and  is  determined 
to  be  henceforth  identified  with  his  cause. 

Baptism  is  accordingly  represented  as  being  admin- 
istered in  the  name  of  Christ.  The  inquiring  multitude 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost  were  directed  to  "  repent  and 
be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  The  Sa- 
maritans believing  ''  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus."  Acts  2  :  38  ;  8  :  16.  See  also  Acts  10  : 
48 ;  19  :  5.  The  import  of  this  phraseology  is  suffi- 
ciently apparent  from  1  Cor.  1 :  12-15.  "  Now  this  I 
say,  that  every  one  of  you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of 
Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ.  Is  Christ 
divided  1  was  Paul  crucified  for  you  1  or  were  ye  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Paul  1  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized 
none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gains;  lest  any  should 
say  that  I  had  baptized  in  my  own  name.''''  The  apostle 
could  have  been  accused  of  baptizing  in  his  own  name 
in  no  other  sense  than  that  he  baptized  those  who 
were  converted  under  his  ministry  as  his  adherents  or 


20  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

disciples.  To  show  his  brethren  the  impropriety  of 
professing  to  be  the  followers  or  adherents  of  himself 
or  any  other  apostle,  he  reminds  them  that  they  had 
been  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  or  as  his  disciples. 
In  being  baptized  they  had  solemnly  averred  that  they 
had  chosen  him  for  their  Master;  and  hence  for  them 
to  profess  severally,  "  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos, 
and  I  of  Cephas,"  was  virtually  renouncing  their 
baptism. 

Of  similar  import  is  the  kindred  phrase,  ^^  baptized 
into  Christ"  Gal.  3  :  27 ;  Rom.  6:3.  It  expresses  not 
so  much  the  effect,  as  the  nature  or  direction  of  bap- 
tism. The  disciples  of  Christ  having  been  brought 
into  vital  union  with  him  by  faith,  are  then  baptized 
into  him,  as  they  subsequently  become  more  fully  in- 
structed into  him,  and  thus  '■'■grow  up  into  him  in  all 
things."  Eph.  4 :  15.  They  are  baptized  not  into 
the  principles  of  Judaism,  or  heathenism,  or  human 
philosophy,  but  into  Christ — into  an  acknowledgement 
of  his  authority  and  character  as  exhibited  in  the  gos- 
pel. The  form  of  expression  is  the  same  as  occurs 
in  1  Cor.  10 :  2.  "  Our  fathers  were  all  baptized  unto 
or  into  (cis)  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  No 
one  infers,  that  the  Israelites  in  being  baptized,  became 
the  followers  of  Moses,  that  they  then  for  the  first  time 
submitted  to  him  as  their  leader.  By\t  beijig  baptized 
they  were  baptized  into  him,  or  in  such  a  manner  that 
his  authority  was  formally  recognized  and  acknowl- 
edged. 

The  design  of  baptism  as  a  profession  of  submission 
to  Christ,  is  still  more  clearly  brought  to  view  in  Gal.  3: 
27.  "As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,"  or  as  believers  in  him,  "  have  put  on  Christ," 
have  assumed  his  character — have  taken  the  appropri- 
ate badge  of  discipleship.     The  argument  of  the  apos- 


ITS     DESIGN.  21 

tie  leads  him  to  speak  of  baptism  as  the  appointed  and 
all  sufficient  means  of  professing  union  with  Christ.  It 
indicates  that  all  wlio  have  submitted  to  it,  unless  it 
shall  appear  that  they  have  made  an  unworthy  profes- 
sion, are,  without  distinction  of  nation,  sex,  or  condi- 
tion, to  be  regarded  as  his  followers.  The  Gentile 
christians,  no  less  than  the  Jewish,  are  to  be  recognized 
as  "  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus," 
entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  his  most  favored  disci- 
ples.    Verses  26,  28. 

We  accordingly  find  that  faith  in  Christ  is  uniformly 
represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  prerequisite 
to  baptism.  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved."  Mark  16  :  15,  16.  It  is  neces- 
sary that  faith  should  precede  baptism,  inasmuch  as  the 
thing  professed  must  precede  the  profession.  As  there 
is  "  one  Lord"  in  whom  all  christians  believe,  so  there 
is  *'  one  baptism"  by  which  their  faith  is  publicly 
avowed,  Eph.  4:  5.    See  also  Acts  8 :  37;  15:  4. 

Intimately  connected  with  the  idea  of  faith  is  that 
of  evangelical  repentance.  Faith  in  Christ  implies  a 
reception  of  his  gospel,  and  a  submission  to  its  require- 
ments, one  of  the  most  prominent  of  which  is  repent- 
ance— a  renunciation  of  sin,  and  a  consecration  of  the 
affections  to  God.  This  was  made  conspicuous  in  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist.  While  he  announced 
the  approach  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  taught  the 
people  that  "  they  should  believe  on  him  that  should 
come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus,"  he  required 
them  to  "repent,"  and  to  "  bring  forth  fruits  worthy 
of  repentance."  On  complying  with  these  directions 
they  were  baptized,  Hence  it  is  said  that  he  baptized 
them  unto  repentance ;  or  in  profession  that  they  had 


22  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 

renounced  their  sins,  and  were  prepared  to  conform 
their  lives  to  the  principles  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Mat.  3  :  11.     See  also  Acts  2  :  38. 

Baptism  is  accordingly  styled  "  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  toward  God."  1  Peter  3  :  21.  It  implies 
that  the  subject  of  it  is  actuated  by  a  conscientious  re- 
gard for  the  will  of  God,  that  his  mind  has  become 
renewed  and  purified.* 

Baptism,  while  it  is  thus  a  profession  of  what  has 
been  experienced  by  the  subject,  contains  a  distinct 
recognition  of  the  interposition  of  God  in  his  behalf. 
It  indicates  that  he  has  become  changed,  that  he  has 
been  constituted  a  new  creature  ;  and,  of  course,  points 
directly  to  the  cause  of  this  change,  the  renewins;  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  also  indicates  that  he  has 
complied  with  the  conditions  on  which  pardon  is  prom- 
ised ;  that  he  possesses  those  feelings  of  penitence  and 
faith  which  impart  the  consciou^iess  of  forgiveness 
and  reconciliation  with  God.  This  is  implied  in  the 
words,  "  baptism  of  repentance  for  or  literally  unto 
(eis)  the  remission  of  sins."  Mark  1  :  4.  Compare 
the  form  of  expression  with  that  used.  Mat.  3  :  11, 
"  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  (eis)  repen- 
tance." This  denotes,  as  has  been  shown,  not  that  the 
people  were  brought  into  repentance  by  baptism  ;  but, 
that  having  repented  they  were  baptized  in  profession 
of  their  repentance.  In  like  manner  they  were  direct- 
ed to  "  repent  and  be  converted  that  their  sins  might  be 
blotted  out.^^  Compare  Acts  2 :  38 ;  3 :  19.  They 
were  then  to  be  baptized  thereunto,  or  in  token  that 
they  had  forsaken  their  sins,  and  were  thus  in  a  con- 
dition to  appropriate  to  themselves  the  promise  of 
pardon. t 

*  Note  A.  Appendix.  f  Note  B.    Appendix. 


ITS      DESIGN. 


23 


The  reason  is  tlnis  obvions  for  adminis^tering  baptism 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 
An  acknowledgement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as 
holding  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  revelation  of  the 
gospel,  is  implied  in  a  simple  profession  of  faith  in 
Christ;  while  in  a  confession  of  indebtedness  to  divine 
interposition  for  the  remission  of  sin,  and  the  renewal 
of  the  heart,  the  office  and  work  and  claims  of  each  of 
the  persons  in  the  Trinity,  are  brought  definitely  and 
prominently  to  view.  The  subjects  of  baptism  pro- 
fess their  allegiance  to  the  Father  as  their  Creator  and 
Sovereign,  their  reception  of  the  Son  as  their  Lord  and 
Redeemer,  and  their  submission  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
their  Guide  and  Helper  and  Sanctifier. 

Baptism  being  thus  a  profession  of  submission  to  the 
gospel  was  designed  as  a  pre-reqitisite  of  admission  into 
the  Christian  church.  In  this  light  it  appears  to  have 
been  regarded  by  the  apostles  from  the  first  organiza- 
tion of  the  church  at  Jerusalem.  Those  who  gladly 
received  the  word*vere  baptized,  and  thereupon,  as  we 
are  left  to  infer,  were  added  to  the  church.  Acts  2: 
41,47.  It  is  ol)vious,  alike  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  the  Epistles,  that  none  were  admitted  mem- 
bers of  the  apostolic  churches,  but  such  as  had  been 
baptized  on  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  1  Cor.  1 :  13, 
17;   Col.  2:  12;  Eph.  4 :  15  ;  1  Peter  3:  21.  etc. 

The  ordinance  was  thus  constituted  a  visible  line  of 
demarkation  between  the  church  of  Christ  and  the  world. 
It  was  expected  that  those  who  became  the  disciples 
of  Christ  would  "  confess  him  before  men"  by  being 
baptized  ;  that  they  would  thus  publicly  identify  them- 
selves with  the  company  of  his  followers,  and  consent 
to  place  themselves  under  their  watchcare  and  disci- 
pline.    "Without  some  such  visible  line  of  distinction, 


24  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  the  church  could  have 
accomplished  the  object  for  which  it  was  established. 


SECTION  II. 

THE    SYMBOLICAL   IMPORT  OF  BAPTISM, — REMARKS  ON  THE    NATURE 
OF  SYMBOLICAL   INSTITUTIONS. 

A  general  view  of  the  design  of  baptism  has  been 
given  in  the  preceding  section.  We  now  proceed  to 
consider  it  as  a  symbolical  ordinance.  It  is  not 
merely  a  profession,  but  an  emhle7natical  profession  of 
the  change  evinced  in  the  character  of  its  subjects. 
Like  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper  it  shows  forth,  or 
exhibits  in  visible  emblems,  the  facts  for  the  commemo- 
ration of  which  it  was  instituted.  Upon  this  point 
there  is  among  Christians  a  universal  agreement.  It 
becomes  then,  an  interesting  and  important  inquiry, 
What  was  it  designed  to  representff  As  an  emblemati- 
cal rite,  what  does  it  signify  ? 

It  is  generally  assumed  that  its  symbolical  import  is 
single,  that  it  was  designed  to  represent  hut  one  thing. 
And  the  ingenuity  of  authors  has  been  elicited  to  con- 
nect in  one  view  tlie  different  representations  of  its 
significancy  found  in  the  New  Testament.  We  see  no 
occasion,  however,  for  anxiety  on  this  point.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  nature  and  general  design  of  the  ordi- 
nance, nor  in  the  analogy  of  other  symbolical  institu- 
tions, to  forbid  the  supposition  that  it  was  designed  to 
be  the  symbol  of  more  than  one  thing.  If  the  same 
transaction  may  represent  two  or  more  facts  intimately 
connected  with  each  other,  or  even  the  same  fact  in 
different  emblematical  lights,  it  is  only  thereby  ren- 
dered the  more  expressive  and  significant. 


ITS      DESIGN. 


25 


The  primary  design  of  the  Jewish  Passover  as  a 
symbohcal  ordinance  was  to  represent  the  deliverance 
of  the  Israelites,  recorded  Ex.  12.  This,  however, 
did  not  prevent  it  from  being  equally  a  type  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  of  the  deliverance  thereby  ef- 
fected. 1  Cor.  5:7;  John  19 :  36.  Its  significancy 
was  consequently  twofold. 

Another  illustration  of  this  principle  is  found  in  the 
ordinance  of  the  Lord's  supper.  In  one  view,  it  shows 
forth  the  death  of  Christ.  It  represents  his  body  as 
broken  for  his  people,  his  blood  as  shed  for  the  re- 
mission of  their  sins.  It  exhibits  him  as  a  sacrifice 
offered  on  their  behalf,  to  which  they  are  to  look  for 
salvation.  In  another  view  it  represents  him  as  the 
source  of  spiritual  tiourishment  to  his  people,  who  are 
regarded  as  ''partakers  of  that  one  bread,"  the  Bread  of 
life,  who  signify  their  actual  ^^  communion  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ."  And  the  ordinance  is  thus 
rendered  doubly  expressive. 

It  will  be  no  occasion  for  surprise,  therefore,  should 
something  analogous  to  this  be  discovered  with  refer- 
ence to  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 


SECTION   III. 

BAPTISM    A    SYMBOL,    OF   THE    WASHING    AWAY    OF    SIN. 

Baptism,  as  has  already  been  considered,  is  the  ap- 
pointed means  of  professing  that  spiritual  change 
which  is  effected  in  the  character  of  an  individual  upon 
his  reception  of  the  gospel.  This  is  symbolically  pre- 
sented in  baptism  as  the  washing  away  of  sin. 

This  was  very  probably,  in  a  limited  sense,  the  sig- 
nificancy  ascribed  by  the  Jews  to  baptism  when  intro- 
3 


26  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 

duced  by  John  the  Baptist.  Evidence  of  this,  it  is 
thought,  is"  found  in  John  3  :  25,  26  ;  where  allusion 
is  evidently  made  to  the  Jewish  ablutions  or  xoashivgs. 
This  supposition  receives  additional  support  from  IPet. 
3:  21.  The  only  passage,  however,  in  which  bap- 
tism is  described  by  tlie  sacred  writers  as  a  symbol  of 
the  washing  away  of  sin,  is  Acts  22  :  16.  "  Arise  and 
be  baptized  and  loash  avoaxj  thy  sins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  That  this  language  was  not  de- 
signed to  represent  baptism  as  a  means  of  removing 
the  guilt  and  condemnation  of  sin,  is  perfectly  obvious. 
Saul  had  already  become  changed  in  his  character  and 
relations.  His  enmity  to  the  gospel  had  been  sub- 
dued. He  had  been  constituted  "  a  chosen  vessel" 
to  the  Lord.  And  he  is  accordingly  addressed  by  An- 
anias as  a  christian  brother.  There  can  be  no  room 
for  doubt,  therefore,  that  he  had  been  forgiven  and 
accepted  of  God.  The  passage,  however,  clearly 
teaches  that  baptism  is  in  some  sense  actually  indica- 
tive of  the  washing  away  of  sin.  The  one  is  related 
to  the  other  in  the  same  sense  that  "  the  communion 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,"  is  related  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  Lord's  supper,  1  Cor.  10  :  16,  17.  The 
"communion"  or  participation  is,  of  course,  symbolicaly 
the  external  act  being,  by  a  common  figure  of  speech, 
designated  as  that  which  it  represents.  So  in  baptism, 
that  which  distinguishes  the  transaction  is  its  relation 
to  the  thing  signified.  It  is  not  the  external  washing 
that  constitutes  it  a  gospel  ordinance,  but  the  fact  that 
it  is  expressive  of  an  internal  and  spiritual  change ; 
and  this  is  represented  in  Acts  22  :  16  as  the  washing 
away  of  sin.  Saul  was  directed,  not  to  perform  a  mere 
physical  or  ceremonial  cleansing,  not,  in  a  literal  sense, 
to  "  put  away  the  filth  of  the   flesh,"  but  in  an  appro- 


ITS     DESIGN.  27 

priate  emblem  to  wash  away  his  sijis,  to  indicate  that 
his  moral  character  had  become  renewed  in  holiness. 
The  mode  of  expression  is,  as  we  have  before  inti- 
mated, the  same  as  occurs  in  passages  which  describe 
the  symbolical  import  of  the  Lord's  supper;  as  1  Cor. 
11 :  24,  25  ;  Mat.  26  :  26-28,  etc.,  where  the  commu- 
nicant is  represented  as  partaking,  that  is,  in  emblem, 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.* 

The  passage  thus  viewed  is  a  brief  description  of  the 
profession  made  in  Christian  baptism.  The  individual 
baptized  professes  that  he  has  complied  with  the  in- 
junction, "  Wash  you,  make  you  clean,  put  away  the 
evil  of  your  doings  from  before  my  eyes."  Isa.  1 : 
16  ;  Jer.  1 :  14.  He  declares  his  determination  to 
"cleanse  himself  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and 
spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God."  1  Cor. 
7:  1.  He  expresses  the  hope  that  his  sins  have  been 
pardoned  or  washed  away  through  the  merits  of  Christ ; 
that  he  has  experienced  "  the  washing  of  regeneration 
and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  and  at  the 
same  time  he  acknowledges  his  obligation  to  live  in 
accordance  with  the  character  thus  acquired.  He  pro- 
fesses his  hearty  and  entire  acquiescence  in  the  work 
which  has  been  wrought  in  his  behalf. 

*  An  additional  reason  for  the  language  used  Acts  22  ;  16,  may,  per- 
haps, be  found  in  the  fact  that  baptism  was  the  only  means  of  effectu- 
ally washing  away  the  stain  which  had  become  attached  to  the  public 
character  of  Saul,  as  an  enemy  to  Christianity.  For  although  he  may 
have  become  in  the  sight  of  God  a  new  man,  he  could  stand  before  the 
world  in  a  new  character,  as  a  friend  and  servant  of  Christ,  only  by 
publicly  renouncinghis  opposition  to  his  cause,  and  taking  upon  himself 
the  appointed  badge  of  discipleship.  The  appropriateness  of  the  lan- 
guage to  express  this  idea,  however,  is  owing  entirely  to  the  fact  that 
baptism  is,  as  we  have  explained,  really  symbolical  of  the  washing 
away  of  sin.  Otherwise  we  might  as  properly  speak  of  sin  as  being 
washed  away  in  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper. 


28  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

SECTION   IV. 

BAPTISM    NOT    A    SYMBOL   SPECIFICALLY    OF  PURIFICATION. 

Baptism  being-  represented  Acts  22  :  16,  as  an  em- 
blem of  the  washing-  away  of  sin,  it  has  commonly 
been  assumed  that  it  is  significant  of  purification  in 
general.  These  propositions,  however,  as  will  be  evi- 
dent on  reflection,  are  clearly  distinguishable,  and 
oug-ht  not  to  be  confounded.  The  former  neither  in- 
cludes nor  implies  the  latter.  Inattention  to  this  fact 
is  the  cause  of  much  of  the  confusion  and  error  pre- 
valent with  respect  to  the  significancy  of  baptism. 

To  present  this  point  in  its  proper  light  it  may  be 
necessary  to  examine  the  use  made  of  figures  of  speech, 
or  metaphoiical  modes  of  expression,  in  s3'mbolicaI 
ordinances.  To  exhibit  a  fact  pertaining  to  the  mind 
in  an  appropriate  and  expressive  emblem,  we  must 
first  select  some  natural  figure  or  metaphor  under 
which  that  fact  is  accustomed  to  be  presented.  It  is 
difficult  to  conceive  how  a  spiritual  change  can  be 
vividly  represented  by  a  material  emblem,  unless  that 
change  is  first  compared  to  something  analogous  in  the 
material  world.  The  change  experienced  upon  a  re- 
ception of  the  gospel  is  described  as  coming  to  Christ, 
turning  to  him,  looking  to  him,  partaking  ox  tasting  of 
his  grace,  drinking  into  his  Spirit,  putting  on  the  new 
man,  dying  to  sin,  having  sin  covered,  blotted  out,  cast 
aivay,  &c.  These  are  clearly  distinctfigures  of  speech, 
and  might  become  the  foundation  for  so  many  sepa- 
rate symbolical  transactions  ;  which,  although  they 
might  represent  essentially  the  same  thing,  could  not  be 
exchanged  one  for  another  without  destroying  their  dis- 
tinctive character.     An  act  emblematical  of  putting  on 


ITS     DESIGN.  29 

the  new  man,  for  example,  would  not  be  symbolical  of 
the  blotting  out  of  sin.*     The  same  principle  is  appli- 

*In  further  illustration  of  this  position,  it  may  be  observed  that  no 
one  will,  it  is  presumed,  contend  that  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  representa- 
tion of  what  is  experienced  by  the  observant,  is  of  the  same  import  with 
baptism.  And  yet  it  would  be  difficult  to  show  in  what  essential  point 
it  differs,  except  in  the  different  lights  or  aspects  in  which  that  experi- 
ence is  presented.  The  former,  we  say,  represents  our  "  communion  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,"  our  pariici(jalio7i  in  the  blessings  of  his 
mediaiion,  and  this,  as  our  Lord  has  expressly  intimated,  includes  the 
remission  of  our  sins,  and  the  renewal  of  our  nature,  or  the  impartation 
of  spiritual  life.  See  Mat.  26:  28;  John  5:  53,  54,  57.  But  these,  it 
will  be  perceived,  are  precisely  the  facts  indicated  by  baptism.  The 
Lord's  supper,  again,  represents  our  reception  of  Christ,  and  our  depend- 
ence on  his  atonement  for  salvation;  and  this  is  essentially  what  is  un- 
derstood by  faith  in  Christ  which  is  professed  in  baptism.  John  1 :  12. 
Once  more,  the  Lord's  supper  indicates  that  the  observant  has  experienc- 
ed the  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ  in  the  removal  of  sin.  Mat.  26 :  28 ; 
and  in  Rev.  1 :  5,  this  is  associated  with  the  washing  away  of  sin — the 
identical  figure  connected  with  the  significancy  of  baptism.  In  short, 
both  ordinances  represent  an  interest  in  the  blessings  and  effects  of 
Christ's  mediation;  one  is  accordingly  to  be  administered  "in  his 
name ;"  the  other  to  be  observed  "  in  remembrance  of  him."  They  alike 
indicate,  tliat,  in  consequence  of  his  interposition,  the  relations  and  state 
and  character  of  the  observants,  Jiave  become  changed,  that  they  have, 
in  a  word,  been  redeemed  from  sin,  and  made  partakers  of  spiritual  life. 
But  shall  we,  on  the  ground  of  this  fact,  assume  the  position  that  the  two 
ordinances,  as  far  as  they  refer  to  what  has  been  experienced  by  the  ob- 
servant, are  of  the  same  imjDort  ■?  Such  would  evidently  be  a  most  un- 
warrantable and  unreasonable  assumption.  The  different  aspects  or 
emblematical  lights  in  which  the  general  facts  to  which  both  ordinances 
relate  are  presented,  are  suflicient  to  constitute  an  essential  difference  in 
their  nature  and  significancy.  The  great  facts  pertaining  to  the  work  of 
Christ,  and  to  the  experience  of  his  people — to  both  of  which  each  ordi- 
nance directly  refers,  com.  Rom.  6:  4;  1  Cor.  11;  26;  10:  16,  17, — 
by  being  presented  in  different  emblems,  in  accordance  with  different 
modes  of  conception  and  of  representation  adopted  by  the  human  mind, 
with  different  allusions,  and  for  what  are,  in  some  respects,  different  pur- 
poses, are  made  more  impressive,  their  various  bearings  and  relations 
are  more  clearly  perceived,  and  they  become  more  fully  incorporated 
with  the  habitual  conceptions  and  feelings  of  christians.  Thus,  while 
baptism  is  placed  at  the  threshhold  of  the  Christian  church  to  indicate  to 

3* 


30 


CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 


cable  to  the  figure  associated  with  the  significancy  of 
baptism,  the  rvashing  away  of  sin. 

Purification,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  is  effected 
in  various  ways ; — by  means  of  lire  in  refining,  see 
Mai.  3  :  3  ;  of  wind  in  winnowing,  Mat.  3 :  12 ;  of 
water  in  washing,  Eph.  5  :  26 ;  or  of  a  merely  ritual 
observance,  as  in  sprinJding,  Heb.  9  :  13.  The  figures 
employed  in  these  passages  are  as  really  distinct  as 
those  just  adduced;  and  cannot  in  reference  to  a  sym- 
bolical transaction  be  substituted  one  for  another.  A 
rite  significant  of  refining,  for  example,  however  forci- 
bly it  might  represent  pMr/^ca^?'on  as  presented  in  Mai. 
3:3;  Zech.  13:  9,  etc.,  would  entirely  fail  of  expres- 
sing the  significancy  of  baptism  as  explained  in  Acts 
22  :  16.  Baptism  was  never  designed  to  represent  the 
refining  of  the  soul,  its  purification  from  the  dross  or 
alloy  of  sin  ;  nor  the  sprinkling  of  the  heart  from  an 
evil  conscience.  These  are  ideas  entirely  foreign  to 
the  ordinance.  It  is  associated  with  the  general  idea 
of  purification  in  no  other  way  than  as  it  is  an  emblem 
specifically  of  "  the  washing  away  of  sin." 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  in  alluding  to  spiritual  purifica- 
tion or  cleansing,  commonly,  whenever  any  specifica- 

the  world  an  entrance  on  the  enjoyment  aiid  pursuit  of  what  is  revealed 
in  the  gospel,  a  full  and  final  separation  to  a  life  of  faith  on  the  Son  of 
God,  an  actual  assimilation  in  spirit  and  character  to  his  death  and  res- 
urrection, the  Lord's  supper  is  a  standing  ordinance  to  indicate  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  exercises  and  facts  embraced  in  this  profession,  and 
hence  serves  as  a  continual  "remembrancer"  of  what  the  christian  has 
received  through  Christ.  The  ordinances,  however,  differ,  as  we  have 
shown,  not  only  in  the  position  they  occupy,  and  the  purposes  they  were 
designed  to  serve,  but  also  in  their  nature  and  significancy;  and  this  dif- 
ference, at  least  as  far  as  the  experience  of  the  observants  is  concerned, 
consists,  we  repeat,  mainly  in  the  different  aspects,  or  cmhlcmntical  lights 
in  v)hich  the  general  facts  to  which  they  both  equally  relate,  are  rcpre- 
scnled. 


ITS     DESIGN.  31 

tion  is  made  as  to  mode,  represent  it  as  a  washing. 
This  seems  to  have  been  the  prevailing  usage  among 
the  primitive  Christians.  In  no  instance  in  the  New 
Testament, except  in  those  portions  addressed  expressly 
to  the  Jews, — an  exception,  which,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  cannot  affect  our  argument, — is  spiritual  pu- 
rification described  by  language  borrowed  from  mere 
ritual  observances.*  Paul  addressing  the  Corinthians, 
says  "  Such  were  some  of  you,  but  }^e  are  washed,  but 
ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified,"  1  Cor.  6  :  11. 
So  also  Tit.  3  :  5, — "  According  to  his  mercy  he  saved 
us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Eph.  5  :  26,—"  Christ  loved  the 
church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify 
and  cleanse  it  by  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word." 
So  settled  does  this  usage  appear  to  have  been,  that  it 
was  preserved  where  we  should  least  have  expected  it. 
It  was  retained  even  at  the  hazard  of  introducing  in- 
congruity into  the  description.  Thus  in  Rev.  1:5; 
7  :  14.  "  Unto  him  that  hath  loved  us  and  washed  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  ownblood.''^  "  These  are  they  who 
came  out  of  great  tribulation,  and  have  icashed  their 
robes  and  jnade  them  white,  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb." 
In  the  former  of  these  passages  the  term  employed  is 
Aoiiu,  (louo)  which  properly  designates  the  act  of  bath- 
ing.    In  the  latter  the  term  used  is  rXivu,  (pluno)  which 

*  ]  Peter,  1 :  2,  cannot  be  properly  adduced  as  an  exception.  For, 
first,  the  epistle  is  addressed  to,  although,  as  appears  from  various  ex- 
pressions contained  in  it,  not  exclusively  designed  for  the  Jews,  desig- 
nated chap.  1 :  1,  as  the  strangers  of  the  dispersion,  nagsirtSfinoi 
Siacr-rropSs.  Compare  James  1 :  1.  Secondly,  sprinkling  under  the  law 
was  associated  with  the  idea  simply  of  atonement  or  consecration,  no 
less  than  of  purification.  See  Ex.  29:  21,26,  29,  33;  Lev.  1  ;  3 — 5; 
4 :  2,  6,  13,  17,  20 ;  6 :  27,  etc.  The  design  of  the  apostle  Peter  evi- 
dently is  to  speak  of  the  blood  of  Christ  as  the  ground  of  atonement, 
which  may,  or  may  not,  be  associated  with  the  figure  of  a  purification. 


32  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

is  appropriated  specifically  to  the  washing'  or  rinsing  of 
clothes,  the  effect  of  which  is,  of  course,  not  a  ceremo- 
nial purification,  but,  as  here  definitely  stated,  to 
"  make  them  white."  No  doubt,  therefore,  can  exist 
that  the  figure  of  washing  is  employed  in  these  passa- 
ges.* 

A  suflacient  reason  for  the  preference  given  to  this 
figure,  aside  from  its  perfect  naturalness  to  denote 
cleansing,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  a  great  portion  of 
those  to  whom  the  gospel  was  preached  would  not 
readily  have  appreciated  the  force  of  figures  borrowed 
from  the  Jewish  ritual.  How  mere  sprinkling  could 
be  an  appropriate  emblem  of  cleansing,  they  would 
not  easily  apprehend.  They  would  be  able  to  dis- 
cover no  natural  correspondence  between  the  sign  and 
the  thing  signified.  Hence  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
apostles  whenever  they  had  occasion,  while  writing  to 
the  Gentile  churches,  to  speak  of  spiritual  cleansing, 
should  uniformly,  either  leave  the  mode  undefined,  or 
introduce  the  figure  of  washing.  This  was  a  figure 
the  force  of  which  they  could  perceive  without  a  spe- 
cial acquaintance  with  the  sacrificial  and  ceremonial 
purifications  of  the  Jews.  It  was  simple  and  con- 
formed to  nature  ;  and  was  consequently  well  adapted 
to  be  associated  with  the  significancy  of  an  external 
rite,  as  baptism. 

♦  On  the  representation  of  these  passages  is  founded  the  beautiful  and 
expressive  lines  of  Cowper — 

"  There  is  a  fountain  filled  with  blood, 

Drawn  from  Immanuel's  veins ; 

And  sinners  plunged  beneath  that  flood, 

Lose  all  their  guilty  stains," 
as  also  the  following  from  Watts — 

"  And  strangely  washed  their  raiment  white, 

In  Jesus'  dying  blood." 


ITS      DESIGN. 


33 


In  an  ordinance  of  the  gospel  it  might  be  expected 
that  its  significancy  would  become  apparent,  not  by 
tracing  it  through  the  intervention  of  other  ceremo- 
nies^ but  by  simply  comparing  the  sign  with  the  thing 
signified.  It  might  reasonably  be  anticipated  that 
there  would  be  a  direct  and  obvious  and  natural,  and 
not  merely  a  remote  and  ceremonial^  correspondence 
between  the  external  act,  and  the  object  to  be  repre- 
sented. And  hence  we  could  hardly  have  imagined 
that  a  ceremony  conformed  to  the  figure  of  sprinkling 
as  expressive  of  purification,  would  in  any  extent,  have 
been  introduced.  These  considerations  sufficiently 
account  for  the  fact  that  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
washing  away  of  sin,  and  this  alone,  as  expressive  of 
purification,  is  connected  with  the  significancy  of 
baptism. 


SECTION  V. 

BAPTISM    A   SYMBOL    OF    SPIRITUAL,   DEATH    AND   RESUURECTION. 

Baptism  was  further  designed  to  be  a  symbolical 
profession  of  death  and  resurrection, — death  to 
SIN,  and  resurrection  to  newness  of  life.  These 
figures  difier  from  that  of  washing  in  being  more  striking 
and  expressive.  The  individual  baptized  professes 
that  he  is,  not  merely  washed  from  his  sins,  but  dead 
to  sin.  Not  merely  has  his  nature  become  freed  from 
defilement ;  he  has  entered  upon  a  new  life,  a  new 
state  of  existence. 

Such  is  the  representation  in  Rom.  6 :  2-5. 
"How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer 
therein  ?     Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  have 


34 


CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 


been  baptized  in  Jesus  Christ,  have  been  baptized  into 
his  death?"  or  into  a  conformity  to  him  with  respect  to 
death  1  As  he  denied  himself  and  became  obedient 
unto  death  on  our  behalf,  so  we  in  being  baptized  pro- 
fess to  have  denied  ourselves  in  becoming  dead  to  sin, 
dead  to  the  gratification  of  our  selfish  and  unholy  pas- 
sions. "  Therefore,"  or  on  account  of  this  design  of 
the  ordinance,  "  we  are  hurled  with  him  by  baptism  into 
dealh.''^  The  same  view  is  presented  in  Col.  2: 
12,  ^0 ;  3:.  1-3.  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein 
also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God."  '?  If  ye  be  dead  with  Christ  from 
the  rudiments  of  the  world,  why  as  though  living  in  the 
world  are  ye  subject  to  [carnal]  ordinances  ?"  "If  ye 
be  risen  with  Christ  seek  those  things  which  are  above 
where  Christ  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  Set 
your  affection  on  ihings  above,  not  on  things  on  the 
earth.  For  ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ 
in  God." 

From  these  passages  it  appears  that  in  baptism 
there  is  a  profession  of  death,  not  only  to  sin  as  such, 
but  to  the  world,  its  rudiments,  its  pleasures,  its  tempt- 
ations. The  individual  baptized  declares  that  he  is  no 
longer  influenced  by  the  world,  that  he  is  free  from  the 
control  of  its  maxims,  the  fear  of  its  persecutions,  and 
the  desire  of  its  sinful  pleasures. 

With  this  death  to  sin  and  the  world,  is  associated  in 
the  symbolical  language  of  baptism,  a  7T.swrrcc//on  to  a 
new  and  spiritual  life.  "  We  are  buried  with  him  in 
baptism,  that.^  Hke  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead 
by  the  glory  of  the  Fatlier,  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  resurrection.^'     "  Buried  with  him  in  bap- 


ITS    DESIGN.  35 

tism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  wilh  him  through  the 
faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the 
dead."  "If  ye  then  be  risen  with  Christ,  seek  those 
things  which  are  above."  Rom.  6:4,  5;  Col.  2: 
12;  3:  1. 

In  these  passages  we  are  taught  that  as  there  is  in 
baptism  a  likeness  or  representation  of  death,  so  also 
of  a  resurrection, — that  as  there  is  a  burial,  so  there  is 
a  rising  again,  and  that  this  is  expressive  of  an  obliga- 
tion to  walk  in  newness  of  life.  As  the  christian  has 
passed  from  death  unto  life,  as  he  has  emerged  from  a 
state  of  moral  darkness  and  insensibility  to  the  con- 
sciousness and  enjoyment  of  spiritual  things,  as  he 
has  new  views,  new  principles  of  action,  new  sources 
of  happiness,  new  objects  of  pursuit,  nothing  could  be 
more  appropriate  to  express  the  change,  than  the  figure 
of  a  resurrection,  an  emerging  into  a  new  state  of 
being. 

The  import  of  baptism  as  an  emblematical  profes- 
sion of  death  and  resurrection,  is  thus  presented  in  a 
clear  and  interesting  light.  The  meaning  of  Rom. 
6:  2-11;  Col.  2:  12,  20;  3:  1-5,  is  too  obvious 
to  be  easily  misimderstood  or  obscured.  Hence  the 
frequency  and  explicitness  with  which  the  significancy 
of  baptism  as  exhibited  in  these  passages,  is  alluded  to 
in  the  writings  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers. 

Hermas,  whose  works  are  referred  to  the  commence- 
ment of  the  second  century,  speaks  of  "  men  going 
down  into  the  water  bound  to  death,  and  coming  up 
out  of  it  appointed  to  life." 

The  author  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  says, 
"  Baptism  relates  to  the  death  of  Christ;  the  water  an- 
swers to  the  grave  ;  the  immersion  represents  our 
dying  with  him,  the  emersion  our  rising  with  him." 


36  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

Chrysostom  represents  "  the  symbol  of  baptism"  as 
referring  "  at  the  same  time  to  burial  and  death,  and 
to  resurrection  and  life.  For  our  heads  being  immersed 
in  the  water,  as  in  a  sepulchre,  the  old  man  is  buried, 
and  sinking  down,  the  whole  is  concealed  at  once; 
then  as  we  emerge,  the  new  man  rises  again.  For  as 
it  is  easy  to  be  baptized  (immersed),  and  to  emerge, 
so  it  is  easy  for  God  to  bury  the  old  man,  and  to  bring 
forth  to  the  liglit  the  new." 

Basil.  "We  being  baptized  into  death  in  symbol 
(of  the  death  of  Christ) ,  should  die  to  sin  ;  and  by  the 
ascent  from  the  baptism  (the  immersion)  being  raised 
as  from  the  dead,  we  should  live  to  God  in  Christ 
Jesus,  and  should  die  no  more,  that  is,  should  sin  no 
more." 

Cyril.  "  As  Jesus,  taking  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world,  died,  that  having  put  to  death  sin,  he  might 
raise  thee  up  in  righteousness;  so  thou  also  descending 
into  the  water,  and  being  in  a  manner  buried  with 
him,  as  he  was  in  the  rock,  art  raised  again,  walking 
in  newness  of  life." 

Strikingly  similar  is  the  representation  given  by  the 
most  distinguished  Pedobaptist  writers  of  modern  times. 

The  celebrated  Turrettin  admits  that  "as  in  former 
times,  the  persons  to  be  baptized  were  immersed  in  the 
water,  continued  under  the  water,  and  emerged  out  of 
it,  (Mat.  3  :  16  ;  Acts  8:  38  ;)  so  the  old  man  died  in 
them  and  was  buried,  and  the  new  man  arose.  (Rom. 
6:  4;  Col  2  :   12.)" 

Witsius.  "  Baptism  represents  those  benefits  both 
present  and  future,  which  believers  obtain  in  Christ. 
Among  the  present  benefits,  the  principal  is,  comnain- 
ion  with  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ ; 
and,  which  is  consequent  upon  it,  the  mortification  and 


ITS    DESIGN. 


37 


burial  of  our  old,  and  resurrection  of  the  new  man,  in 
virtue  of  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ." 

Grotius.  "  There  was  in  baptism  as  administered  in 
former  times,  an  image  both  of  a  burial  and  of  a  resur- 
rection ;  which  in  respect  to  Christ,  was  external ;  in 
regard  to  christians,  internal.     (Rom.  6  :  4.)  " 

Archbishop  Leighion.  "Rom.  6:  4, — where  the 
dipping  into  water  is  referred  to,  as  representing  our 
dying  with  Christ,  the  return  thence,  as  expressive  of 
our  rising  with  him." 

Dr.  Chalmers.  "  Jesus  Christ  by  death  underwent 
this  sort  of  baptism, — even  immersion  under  the  sur- 
face of  the  ground,  whence  he  soon  emerged  again  by 
his  resurrection.  We  by  being  baptized  into  his  death, 
are  conceived  to  have  made  a  similar  translation  ;  in 
the  act  of  descending  under  the  water  of  baptism,  to 
have  resigned  an  old  life,  and  in  the  act  of  ascending, 
to  emerge  into  a  second,  or  a  new  life."  Remarks  on 
Rom.  6  :  3-7. 


SECTION  VI. 

THE    SIGNIFICANCY   OF    BAPTISM   AS   REFERRING   TO    THE    DEATH   AND   RESUR- 
RECTION   OF    CHRIST. 

We  proceed  to  show  that  the  symbolical  language 
of  baptism  has  also  reference  to  the  death  and  res- 
urrection or  CHRIST.  This  fact  is  clearly  brought  to 
view  in  the  passages  already  quoted.  The  subject  of 
baptism  is  not  merely  buried,  he  professes  to  be  buried 
with  Christ,  to  be  baptized  into  his  death,  or  into  con- 
formity to  him  with  respect  to  death.  He  is  planted 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death.  Rom.  6:  3-5.  He  rises 
with  him.  He  declares  his  faith  in  the  power  that 
4 


38  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

raised  him  from  the  dead.  Col.  2:  12.  Baptism 
is  to  him  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God,  as  it  is  connected  with  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
1  Pet.  3:  21.  He  thus,  in  being  baptized,  distinctly 
recognizes  the  fact  that  Jesus  has  died,  and  risen 
again,  and  that  on  this  account  he  has  been  enabled  to 
die  to  sin,  and  to  rise  to  newness  of  life.  He  professes 
his  obligation  to  be  spiritually  conformed  to  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  his  Lord. 

The  great  facts  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  which  are  the  only  ground  of  our  hope  of 
salvation,  are  thus,  whenever  the  ordinance  is  properly 
observed,  distinctly  presented  to  view.  The  symbol  is 
such  as  to  point  us  directly  to  tlie  fact  that  Jesus  has 
been  delivered  to  death  for  our  offences,  and  that  he 
has  risen  again  for  our  justification,  and  now  lives  to 
intercede  for  us,  to  reign  in  his  church,  and  finally  to 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness.  Rom.  4:  25; 
Heb.  7:  25;  Rev.  1:  18;  Acts  17:  31. 

The  design  of  baptism  as  thus  exhibited  was  univer- 
sally understood  by  the  early  Christians. 

Ignatius,  in  an  epistle  to  the  church  in  Thallia,  says, 
"  Baptism  was  given  to  set  forth  the  death  of  our  Lord." 

Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  140.  "  We  represent  our 
Lord's  sufferings  and  resurrection  by  baptism  in  a  pool." 

Apostolic  Constitutions,  A.  D.  300.  "Baptism  was 
given  to  represent  the  death  of  Christ." 

Basil.  "There  is  but  one  death  for  the  world,  and 
one  resurrection  from  the  dead,  of  which  baptism  is  a 
type." 

These  passages  are  not  adduced  as  authority  in  de- 
termining the  significancy  of  baptism.  They  are 
chiefly  interesting  as  indicating  that  the  views  of  the 
Christians  upon  this  point  during  the  apostolic  and  sue- 


ITS    DESIGN.  39 

ceeding  ages,  were  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  of 
the  the  New  Testament.  The  fact  so  clearly  brought 
to  view  in  Col.  2:  12;  Rom.  6:  3-5,  that  in  bap- 
tism there  is  an  emblematical  profession  of  faith  in 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  appears  to  have 
been,  in  those  early  times,  universally  understood  and 
acknowledged. 


In  the  preceding  pages  we  have  endeavored  to  pre- 
sent the  design  of  baptism  in  its  true  scriptural  light. 
Thus  viewed  the  ordinance  is  peculiarly  significant. 
The  great  moral  change  of  which  the  christian  is  the 
subject,  is  represented  by  the  most  expressive  emblems 
which  could  be  selected ;  and  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
recognize  the  great  facts  in  the  Christian  system  to 
which  this  change  is  attributable.  Hence  whenever 
the  inquiry  is  made  of  the  disciples  of  Christ,  as  was 
of  the  Jews  in  reference  to  the  passover,  "What  mean 
ye  by  this  service  '?"  their  appropriate  answer  is, — 
Our  Divine  Master  for  our  sakes  submitted  to  death, 
entered  the  grave,  and  rose  again  from  the  dead,  and 
we  thus  profess  our  conformity  to  him  as  his  disciples. 
We  signify  not  only  that  we  have  been  washed  from 
our  sins,  but  that  we  have  become  dead  to  sin  and  the 
world,  and  have  risen  to  the  enjoyment  and  pursuit  of 
a  new  and  holy  life. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE    FORM    OF    BAPTISM. 


SECTION  I. 

THE    DESIGN   OF    BAPTISM    ANSWERED    ONLY    BY    IMMERSION.       ITS 
ENTIRE  SIGNIFICANCY    MUST    BE    PRESERVED. 

In  the  preceding-  chapter  we  have  examined  some- 
what fully  the  design  and  significancy  of  baptism,  as 
exhibited  in  the  New  Testament.  This  examination, 
as  before  intimated,  will  assist  us  in  arriving  at  a  satis- 
factory conclusion  respecting- the ybnw,  the  subjects,  the 
authority,  and  the  relative  position  of  the  ordinance. 
Let  its  design  as  a  symbolical  institution  be  fully  per- 
ceived and  appreciated,  and  the  confusion  and  diver- 
sity of  sentiment  prevalent  on  these  several  points, 
will,  for  the  most  part,  cease  to  exist.  Whatever  be 
the  views  entertained  of  the  ordinance  in  other  re- 
spects, it  will  be  admitted,  at  least,  that  nothing  can 
be  a  valid  observance  of  it,  that  fails  of  fulfilling  its 
design  and  preserving-  its  significancy.  We  accord- 
ingly proceed  to  inquire,  in  the  first  place,  What  does 
the   design  of  baptism  teach  us  Avitli  respect  to 

THE    ACT    ENJOINED  ? 

In  entering-  upon  an  examination  of  this  point,  we 
observe  at  once,  that  ihe  facts  presented  in  the  prece- 
ding sections,  if  duly  considered,  will  directly  and  un- 


ITS     FORM.  41 

avoidably,  we  are  constrained  to  believe,  lead  to  the 
conclusion  that  nothing  is  valid  baptism  but  immersion 
in  water.  As  a  symbolical  ordinance  cannot  be  rightly 
observed,  cannot  in  fact  exist,  where  its  significancy  is 
wanting ;  so  in  nothing  short  of  immersion  does  the 
significancy  of  baptism  appear. 

Baptism  we  have  shown  was  designed  to  be  a  symbol 
of  death  and  resurrection.  When  the  subject  is  laid 
beneath  the  water,  there  is  a  resemblance  of  submis- 
sion to  death.  He  is  hid  from  the  view  of  the  world. 
He  is  actually  buried  in  a  liquid  grave.  In  emerging 
he  enters  a  new  element;  he  seems  to  come  forth  to  a 
new  state  of  existence  ;  and  he  thus  signifies  that  like 
as  Clirist  rose  from  the  dead,  so  he  has  risen  to  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  More  appropriate  and  forcible 
emblems  could  not  have  been  selected.  In  any  appli- 
cation of  water  short  of  immersion  this  significancy  is 
not  preserved.  No  one  pretends  that  in  sprinkling,  for 
example,  there  is  a  representation  of  death  and  resur- 
rection, in  respect  either  to  Christ,  or  his  disciples. 
Whatever  be  the  meaning  attached  to  such  a  transac- 
tion, it  fails  most  obviously  in  expressing  the  symbolical 
import  of  baptism. 

Is  it  said,  that  although  sprinkling  does  not  preserve 
the  significancy  of  the  ordinance  in  every  respect,  it 
nevertheless  does  in  part?  we  reply, 

1.  The  design  of  the  ordinance  cannot  be  met  while 
any  essential  part  of  its  significancy  is  omitted.  This 
proposition  can  be  presented  in  a  light  so  clear  and  ob- 
vious, that  its  correctness,  we  think,  must  be  perceived 
and  admitted.  The  primary  design  of  the  Jewish  pass- 
over  was  to  commemorate  the  deliverance  of  the  Israel- 
ites, recorded  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Exodus.  There 
was  also  a  secondary  reference  to  the  mediation  of 
4* 


42  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

Christ.  Now  had  the  Jews  confined  their  observance 
of  the  rite  to  those  parts  whicli  served  especially  to 
represent  their  own  deliverance,  omitting  whatever 
referred  more  directly  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ, — com- 
pare Ex.  12:  5,  46;  1  Pet.  1:  19;  John  19:  33, 
36, — would  the  design  of  the  rite  have  been  answered? 
or  the  will  of  the  Lawgiver  obeyed  ?  Would  they 
have  been  excused  by  alleging  that  the  substance  was 
preserved,  that  its  primary  design,  and  the  only  design 
specified  in  its  institution,  (see  Ex.  12,)  was  met  ? 
Such  liberty  with  the  ordinances  of  religion  would  an- 
ciently have  been  considered  daring  presumption. 

Take  another  illustration.  The  Lord's  supper  is  de- 
signed to  be  a  means  of  commemorating  the  suflerings 
of  Christ,  of  showins^  forth  his  death  as  the  ground  of 
our  redemption.  This  is  the  only  point  pertaining  to 
its  design  specified  at  its  institution.  The  language  of 
Christ  to  his  disciples  is,  "Do  this  in  remembrance  of 
TTie."  "  This  is  my  body  that  is  broken  for  you."  "This 
is  my  blood  that  is  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
The  significancy  of  the  ordinance  in  these  respects 
would  appear  were  simply  the  bread  to  be  broken,  the 
wine  to  be  poured  forth,  and  the  worshippers  by  some 
act,  such  as  the  reception  of  the  elemenls  into  their 
hands,  to  indicate  their  dependence  on  the  thing  repre- 
sented, for  salvation.  Christ  would  thus  be  set  forth 
as  the  object  of  their  faith,  as  one  who  has  been  cruci- 
fied and  has  shed  his  blood  on  their  behalf.  But  would 
this  fulfill  the  design  of  the  ordinance?  It  might  repre- 
sent an  interest  in  Christ  in  one  important  light,  the 
light  in  which  he  is  presented  to  view  in  Mat.  26: 
26-28;  Luke  22:  19,  20;  1  Cor.  11:  24-28,  29; 
but  it  would  fail  of  representing  it  in  another  light; 
as  it  is    presented    in  1   Cor.    10 :    16,    17 ;    where 


ITS    FORM.  43 

christians  are  described  as  "pai'taJcers  of  that  one 
bread." 

Now  should  it  be  contended  that  it  is  not  necessary  to 
eat  the  bread,  and  to  drink  of  the  cup, — as  the  Roman- 
ists actually  do  with  respect  to  the  latter, — that  the 
significancy  of  the  ordinance,  as  far  as  is  indicated  in 
its  original  institution,  and  as  far  as  its  essence  is  con- 
cerned, may  be  preserved  without  it,  how  could  the 
correctness  of  the  position  be  called  in  question,  with- 
out at  the  same  time  admitting  that  the  design  of  bap- 
tism cannot  be  met  when  one  important  part  of  its 
significancy  is  omitted?  If  the  proper  observance  of 
the  Lord's  supper  requires  us  to  exhibit  Christ,  not 
merely  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin  to  whom  we  look,  or  on 
whom  we  depend,  for  pardon  and  salvation,  but  also  as 
the  source  of  our  spiritual  nourish  merit,  as  one  of  whose 
blessings  we  pai^take,  no  argument  is  requisite  to  show 
that  the  ordinance  of  baptism  cannot  properly  be  ob- 
served where  all  reference  to  dying  to  sin  and  rising  to 
newness  of  life,  all  allusion  to  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  is  wanting  in  the  symbol.  If  in  one 
case  the  entire  significancy  of  the  ordinance  is  essential 
to  its  validity,  the  same  is  equally  and  obviously  true 
in  the  other.     But, 

2.  That  part  of  the  significancy  of  baptism  which  is 
confessedly  omitted  in  any  transaction  short  of  immer- 
sion, is  the  most  prominent  and  expressive,  and  judging 
from  the  representation  of  the  New  Testament,  we 
might  conclude,  the  most  important.  This  alone  is 
referred  to  by  the  apostles  when  speaking  of  baptism 
and  its  uses  in  their  epistles.  This  alone  is  appealed 
to  by  the  sacred  writers  in  illustration  of  the  obligation 
which  baptism  recognizes  as  resting  on  its  subjectSt 
And  except  for  the  incidental  allusion  in  Acts  22: 


44  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

16,  we  might  look  in  vain  for  scriptural  testimony  to 
refute  the  position,  that  in  this  is  included  the  entire 
significancy  of  the  ordinance.  Now  were  any  part  of 
its  symbolical  import  to  be  disregarded,  this  certainly 
should  be  preserved. 

Is  it  suggested,  that  sprinkling,  however  deficient  in 
significancy,  may,  nevertheless,  be  observed  as  a  means 
of  professing  death  and  resurrection  ?  The  principle 
involved  in  such  a  position  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
consider  hereafter.  We  simply  observe  at  present,  that 
it  entirely  overlooks  the  design  of  baptism  as  a  symbol- 
ical institution.  We  might  with  equal  propriety  adopt 
any  otiier  ceremony,  Jewish,  Pagan,  or  Papistical,  and 
call  it  baptism,  or  the  Lord's  supper,  and  observe  it 
for  the  purposes  for  which  these  institutions  were 
established.  This,  however,  would  be,  not  observing, 
but  setting  aside,  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  and 
substituting  the  inventions  of  men  in  their  stead. 


SECTION  II. 

NO   PART   OF   THE    SIGNIFICANCY'    OF    BAPTISM    PRESERVED    IM    SPRINKLING. 

Our  argument  in  the  preceding  section  was  accom- 
modated to  the  assumption  that  the  significancy  of 
baptism  may  be  preserved  in  part  in  sprinkling.  We 
shall  now  endeavor  to  show  that  this  assumption  is 
groundless.  Sprinkling  sets  aside  the  significancy  of 
baptism  entirely.  It  preserves  no  pa7't  of  its  symboli- 
cal import. 

Baptism,  we  have  shown,  represents,  in  addition  to 
death  and  resurrection,  the  ivashing  away  of  sin.  In 
sprinkling,  however,  no  such  representation  appears. 


ITS    FORM.  45 

For  although  among  the  Jews  sprinkling  was  etnploy- 
ed  in  rites  of  purification,  it  was  not  a  mode  of  wash- 
ing. The  terms  in  the  original  scriptures  by  which  the 
two  ideas  are  expressed,  are  as  definite  and  distinct  in 
their  signification,  as  in  the  English  language.  This 
distinction  is  sufficiently  apparent  in  Lev.  6  :  27. 
"  When  there  is  sprinhled  of  the  blood  thereof  on  any 
garment,  thou  shalt  wash  that  whereon  it  was  sprink- 
led in  the  holy  place."  See  also  Lev.  14:  7,  8. 
President  Beecher,  in  his  articles  on  baptism,  in  the 
Biblical  Repository,  has  presented  this  point  in  a  pecu- 
liarly clear  and  forcible  light.  Alluding  to  the  descrip- 
tion which  Josephus  gives  of  certain  Jewish  rites  in 
which  sprinkling  was  required,  he  says,  "  He  not  only 
omits  washing,  bat  he  so  describes  the  pui  ification  of  the  ■ 
people  as  to  imply  that  wasliing  was  no  part  of  the 
rite.^'  "Now  if  it  was  necessary  to  icash  also,  then  it 
is  not  true  that  after  sprinkling  nnly  they  were  clean, 
for  ivashing  still  remained.''^  Again  he  says,  '•  Paul 
also  (Heb.  9  :  13,)  says  nothing  of  a  washing,  but 
speaks  of  sprinkling  as  the  whole."  Biblical  Reposito- 
ry, No.  41,  p.  43.  It  is  admitted,  therefore,  that 
"  sprinkling  only,"  neither  expresses  nor  implies  the 
idea  of  washing.  Hence  it  is  not  possible,  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  that  it  should  represent  the  loashing  away  of 
sin. 

Is  it  urged,  that  sprinkling  though  not  a  symbol  of 
the  washing  away  of  sin,  is  nevertheless  not  without 
significancy  1  that  it  represents  essentially  the  same 
thing  under  another  figure  1  that  it  is  significant  of 
"the  heart  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  ?"  that 
it  is  adapted  to  the  figure  by  which  the  removal  of  sin 
is  indicated  in  Ezek.  36  :  25  ?  We  reply,  the  same 
position  in  general  might  be  assumed  in  favor  of  any 


46  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

Other  transaction  adapted  to  represent  a  spiritual 
change.  We  might  on  the  same  ground  select  any 
other  figure  eu)ployed  in  the  Scriptuies  to  describe 
repentance  and  forgiveness  of  sin;  and  adopting  some 
ceremony  corresponding  thereto,  we  might  designate 
it  baptism,  and  observe  it  as  such.  Because  it  is  said 
Isa.  43  :  25,  "  I  am  he  that  hlotteth  out  thy  transgres- 
sions," and  the  injunction  is  given  Acts  3  :  19,  "Re- 
pent and  be  converted  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out,^^  we  might  assume  that  the  design  of  baptism  is 
sufliciently  met  in  some  act  expressive  of  blotting  out. 
Nor  would  those  who  contend  on  the  ground  now  under 
consideration,  that  sprinkling  is  baptism,  be  able  to 
deny  the  soundness  of  the  conclusion.  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  such  an  act  would  be  significant,  that  it 
would  be  conformed  to  the  representation  of  various 
passages  of  scripture,  that  it  would  express,  under 
another  form,  what  is  expressed  in  baptism.  And  its 
validity  as  baptism  could  be  called  in  question,  only 
by  admitting  that  sprinkling  has  no  claim  on  any  such 
grounds  to  be  considered  a  gospel  ordinance. 

Agai-n,  the  communication  of  spiritual  blessings  is 
described  in  the  Scriptures  as  an  anointing ;  and  the 
*'  baptism  of  the  Spirit,"  is  in  reality  nothing  else  than 
what  is  styled  under  another  figure  "  the  unction  [the 
anointing]  of  the  Holy  One."  What  hinders,  there- 
fore, that  we  adopt  some  ceremony  of  anointing.,  and 
observe  it  in  the  place  of  baptism?  As  many  consid- 
erations certainly  could  be  urged  in  its  favor,  as  can  be 
adduced  to  show  that  the  design  of  baptism  is  met  in 
sprinkling. 

If  these  are  not  parallel  cases  we  are  unable  to  per- 
ceive where  the  analogy  fails.  It  is  impossible  to 
escape  the  conclusion,  either  that  a  ceremony  of  blot- 


ITS    FORM.  47 

ting  out,  or  of  anointing,  or  any  other  similarly  signifi- 
cant act,  would  be  valid  baptism,  or  that  the  position 
that  sprinkling  is  baptism  because  it  is  significant,  and 
represents  the  change  involved  in  conversion  in  accord- 
ance with  scriptural  figures  of  speech,  is  untenable,  and 
ought  to  be  abandoned. 

But  sprinkling,  it  is  urged,  is  significant  of  purifi- 
cation. This,  however,  it  will  be  recollected,  is  not  the 
point  at  issue.  Baptism,  as  we  have  shown,  is  no 
where  in  the  New  Testament  described  as  a  symbol 
simply  of  purification.  It  represents  specifically  the 
washing  away  of  sin. 

The  position  assumed  is,  that  baptism  denotes  purifi- 
cation, and  that  any  form  of  purification  is  adapted  to 
answer  its  design.  The  fallacy  of  this  position  can 
easily  be  made  apparent.  Is  it  admitted  that  an  act 
significant  of  refining,  for  example,  would  be  valid  as 
baptism  ?  Is  it  conceded  that  the  practice  ascribed  to 
certain  ancient  heretical  sects,  of  using^re  for  the  pur- 
pose of  baptizing,  and  in  defence  of  which,  it  is  said, 
they  appealed  to  such  passages  as  Mat.  3 :  11, 
"  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
j^re,"  was  obedience  to  the  law  of  baptism  ?  Would  a 
ceremony  of  anointing,  like  those  employed  in  the 
Jewish  purifications, — see  Lev.  14:  28,  29, — be 
accepted  as  the  initiatory  rite  of  Christianity  ?  These, 
it  cannot  be  denied,  might  be  used  as  symbols  of  puri- 
fication ;  and  their  sufficiency  to  fulfill  the  design  of 
baptism  must  either  be  admitted,  or  the  ground  that  any 
form  of  purification  is  adapted  to  answer  that  purpose, 
must  be  abandoned.  It  is  impossible  to  avoid  this  con- 
clusion. 

But,  it  will  be  urged,  perhaps,  that  the  history  of  the 
institution  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  indicates 


48  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

that  the  use  of  water  is  essential  to  its  validity.  This 
we  cannot  but  regard  as  an  important  admission.  It  is, 
as  will  be  perceived,  an  actual  abandonment  of  the 
position  whose  fallacy  we  are  endeavoring  to  expose. 
To  maintain  that  water  is  requisite  in  baptism,  is  to 
concede  that  any  form  of  purification  will  not  suffice.* 
Washing,  it  is  true,  in  the  ordinary  conceptions  of 
men,  implies  the  use  of  water;  but  not  piuification. 
It  is  as  natural  to  associate  purification  with  the  action 
of  fire,  as  of  water.  Among  the  Jews  it  was  connect- 
ed with  the  offering  of  sacrifices,  and  the  application  of 
blood.     See  also  Lev.  14  :  28,  29  ;    Mat.  3  :  12. 

Now  are  the  advocates  of  th*e  position  under  consid- 
eration willing  to  admit  that  the  use  of  fire,  or  of  any 
other  material  by  which  purification  might  be  indica- 
ted, would  be  valid  as  baptism  ?  Were  a  sect  of  Chris- 
tians to  adopt  some  such  practice  in  preference  to  the 
ceremonies  now  used  for  baptism,  would  they  be  ac- 
knowledged as  persons  regularly  baptized  ?  Their 
submission  to  a  rite  significant  of  purification  could  not 
be  disputed ;  and  nothing  more  on  (he  principle 
assumed  in  the  position  imdcr  consideration,  is  re- 
quired. 

It  will  be  impossible,  we  conceive,  in  the  light  of 
these  suggestions  to  maintain,  that  baptism  simply  de- 

*It  is  also  an  admission  on  the  part  of  Pedobaptists,  that  in  ascer- 
taining the  will  of  Christ  with  respect  to  haplism,  we  are  to  look,  not 
to  the  design  of  the  ordinance  simply,  but  also  to  the  history  of  its  in- 
stitution, and  the  example  of  the  apostles.  If  this  be  true  with  respect 
to  the  material  to  be  vsed,  may  we  not  with  equal,  or  still  stronger 
reason  believe  it  true  with  respect  to  the  act  to  be  performed  1  Is  it 
not  obviously  the  duty  of  christians  in  reference  to  both,  to  "  keep  the 
ordinances  as  they  were  delivered  ?" 


ITS    FORM. 


49 


notes  purification,  and  that  the  mode  by  which  it  is 
signified,  is  of  no  importance  ;  that  one  form  of  purifi- 
cation is  equally  valid  with  another.  The  application 
of  this  principle  in  its  full  extent,  as  pointed  out  in 
our  preceding  remarks,  must  be  acceded  to,  or  the  posi- 
tion must  be  abandoned.  We  repeat  it,  there  is  no 
other  alternative. 


It  has  been  shown  that  the  New  Testament  no  where 
speaks  of  baptism  as  indicative  specifically  of  purifica- 
tion. But  even  were  such  the  fa;t,  it  would  by  no 
means  follow  that  any  form  of  purification  would  suffice 
to  meet  its  design.  We  should  still  be  required,  with- 
out some  express  intimation  to  the  contrary,  to  consider 
baptism  a  symbol  of  purification  only  as  it  represents 
the  washing  away  of  sin.  The  principle  involved  in 
this  statement,  can  be  illustrated  by  examples  in  which 
its  correctness  will  not,  cannot  be  doubted. 

Baptism  is  usually   described  as  "a  sign  of  the  re- 
mission of  sin ;"  in  proof  of  which  reference  is  made  to  . 
Mark   1:4;  Acts  2:  38.     But  is  it  inferred  on    the 
ground  of  this  fact,   that  any  transaction  by   which 
remission  may  be  represented,  will  suffice  to  answer 
the  design  of  baptism  ?     Is  the  conclusion  drawn,  that, 
because  sin  is  described  in  the  Scriptmes  as  being  blot- 
ted out,  covered,  cast  away,  &c.,  a  ceremony  adapted 
to  represent  its  remission  in  accordance  with  any  of 
these  several   figures  of  speech,  may  properly  be  ob- 
served as  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  the  gospel?     Such 
a  ceremony  would  certainly  be  a  symbol  of  the  remis- 
sion of  sin.     But  we  readily  perceive  that  it  is  not  in 
this  light  that  the  idea  of  remission  is  related  to  bap- 
tism.    It  is  significant  of  remission  only  as  it  represents 

5 


50  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

the  washing  away  of  sin.  The  same  principle  would 
obviously  apply,  on  the  supposition  that  baptism  were 
described  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  sign  of  purifica- 
tion. We  might  as  well  adopt  any  symbol  of  remission, 
as  of  purification. 

Take  another  iUustration.  Baptism,  it  is  said,  repre- 
sents the  conm)unication  of  the  Hol}^  Spirit's  influen- 
ces, commonly  identified  with  what  is  styled  "  the 
baptism  of  tlie  Spirit."  But  will  it  be  admitted  by 
those  who  take  this  position,  that  any  act  by  which  the 
impartation  or  reception  of  the  Spirit  might  be  repre- 
sented, would  answer  tlie  purpose  of  baptism  ?  If  so, 
they  must  admit  that  this  would  be  true  of  ano->nting, 
1  John  2  :  27  ;  of  an  emission  of  the  breath,  John  20  : 
22;  and  especially  of  the  reception  of  voter  internally. 
No  figure  is  more  frequently  employed  in  the  Nev/ 
Testament  to  describe  the  reception  of  the  Spirit's  influ- 
ences, than  that  of  drinking ;  and  in  one  instance  it  is 
introduced  in  immediate  connexion  with  baptism. 
"  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond 
or  free  ;  and  have  all  been  made  to  drink  into  one 
Spirit."  1  Cor.  12:  IS.  See  also  John?:  37;  4: 
14.  And  we  might  contend  on  the  strength  of  this 
representation,  that  the  use  of  water  in  drinking,  to 
express  the  act  of  "drinking  into  one  Spirit,"  or  a 
ceremony  of  anointing,  to  represent  the  "  imction  of 
the  Holy  One,"  would  be  "scriptuial  modes  of  bap- 
tism." The  fallacy  of  this  reasoning,  would,  in  such 
a  case,  readily  be  discovered.  It  would  at  once  be 
urged  that  while  baptism  is  significant  of  the  commu- 
nication of  the  Spirit's  influences,  it  becomes  so  through 
the  medium  of  some  other  emblem  than  those  of  drink- 


ITSFORM.  51 

ing"  or  anointing.*  And  it  would  be  equally  fallacious, 
were  baptism  represented  in  the  New  Testament  as 
significant  of  purification,  to  infer  that  any  form  of 
purification  might  be  adopted  at  pleasure.  Baptism 
would  then,  as  now,  be  significant  of  purification  only 
as  a  symbol  of  the  washing  away  of  sin. 

But  there  is  another  light  in  which  this  point  may 
be  presented.  If  baptism,  as  we  have  so  fully  shown 
in  the  preceding  sections,  is  a  symbol  of  the  washing 
away  of  sin,  it  is  not  possible,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
that  it  should  represent  purification  in  any  sense  that 
does  not  include  the  idea  of  washing.  It  cannot  leave 
out  of  view  that  which  at  the  sa?ne  time  it  represents. 
And  hence  as  there  is  confessedly  no  representation  of 
washing  in  sprinkling,  or  anointing,  or  an  act  signifi- 
cant of  refining,  it  is  impossible  that  these  should 
represent  the  washing  away  of  sin.  They  might,  in- 
deed, represent  the  sprinkling  of  the  heart  from  an  evil 
conscience,  the  purging  of  the  soul  from  the  dross  of 
sin,  the  consecration  involved  in  the  unction  of  the 
Spirit ;  but  these  are  ideas  in  no  way  connected  with 
the  significancy  of  baptism.  Its  symbolical  import  is 
simple  and  specific.  It  is  emblematical  of  the  washing 
away  of  sin  ;  and  in  no  transaction  indicative  either  of 
purification,  or  of  remission,  in  which  this  specific  em- 
blem does  not  appear,  is  the  significancy  of  the  ordi- 
nance preserved. 

To  set  aside  the  emblems  selected  by  Christ,  and 
adopt  others  in  their  stead,  on  pretence  that  the  same 

*The  same  remark  will  apply  to  the  figures  oi pouring  and  shed- 
rfmg,  used  Ps.  72:  6,  Isa.  44;  3,  etc.  These  equally  with  those  of 
drinking  ^nd.  anointing,  &c.,  are  entirely  foreign  to  the  significancy 
of  baptism.  For  an  explanation  of  the  figure  "  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,"  see  note  C,  Appendix. 


52  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

general  facts  may  be  represented,  is  to  set  aside  the 
institutions  of  Christ,  and  substitute  in  their  place  other 
rites.  It  is  not  assumed  that  a  ceremony  expressive  of 
the  blotting  out  of  sin,  the  covering  of  sin,  the  purging 
away  the  dross  of  sin,  the  sprinkling  of  the  heart  from 
an  evil  conscience,  the  unction  of  the  Holy  One,  or  the 
act  of  drinking  into  one  Spirit,  would  be  destitute  of 
significancy.  But  it  is  obvious  no  such  ceremony 
could  represent  the  washing  away  of  sin. 

It  thus  appears  that  in  no  ceremony  commonly  de- 
signated baptism,  except  immersion,  is  the  significancy 
of  the  ordinance  preserved  I71  any  respect.  In  sprink- 
ling, for  example,  not  merely  the  most  conspicuous 
part,  but  the  whole  of  its  symbolical  import,  is  wanting. 
That  such  a  transaction  does  not  represent  spiritual 
death  and  resurrection,  conformity  to  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  is  conceded.  That  it  does  not 
represent  the  washing  of  regeneration,  or  the  washing 
away  of  sin,  is  equally  apparent.  This  affords  an  in- 
teresting confirmation  of  the  position  established  in  the 
preceding  section,  that  the  design  of  baptism  can  be 
answered  only  by  immersion  in  water.  In  this,  the 
washing  away  of  sin,  and  conformity  to  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  are  both  exhibited  in  striking 
emblems.  In  no  other  ceremony  called  baptism,  is 
either  represented.  It  will  be  impossible,  we  think, 
on  a  proper  consideration  of  this  fact,  to  mistake  the 
nature  of  the  ordinance.  The  will  of  the  Lawgiver 
with  respect  to  the  act  to  be  performed,  appears  con- 
spicuous in  the  very  design  of  the  institution. 


ITS    FORM. 


SECTION  III. 


THE   MEANING   OP   THE    WORD, 


53 


The  correctness  of  the  conclusion  arrived  at  in  the 
preceding-  sections  with  respect  to  the  act  required  in 
baptism,  is,  if  possible,  still  more  evident  from  the 

MEANING    OF    THE    WORD. 

The  lexicographers  of  the  Greek  language  are  united 
in  declaring  that  to  baptize  is  to  immerse.  Baptizo,  the 
word  uniformly  employed  by  the  sacred  writers  to  de- 
note the  act  of  Christian  baptism,  has  but  one  distinct 
and  general  signification,  expressed,  it  is  true,  in  differ- 
ent connexions  by  different  terms,  as,  to  immerse,  to 
submerge,  to  plunge,  to  dip,  to  overwhelm.* 

That  this  is  its  true  and  proper  meaning  is  confirmed 
by  the  testimony  of  the  most  eminent  and  learned  Pedo- 
haptist  scholars  and  divines  of  the  present  and  former 
ages. 

Martin  Luther  says,  "  The  teim  baptism  is  a  Greek 
word;  it  may  be  rendered  into  Latin  by  Twersfo  (immer- 
sion) ;  as  when  we  immerse  any  thing  in  water  that  it 
may  be  entirely  covered  with  water." — "  They  ought 
to  be  wholly  immersed,  and  immediately  drawn  out 
again,  for  the  etymology  of  the  word  seems  to  require 
it." 

Calvin.  "The  word  baptize  signifies  to  immerse; 
and  the  right  of  immersion  was  observed  in  the  ancient 
church." 

Beza.  "  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized,  by 
which  word  it  is  certain  immersion  is  signified." 

Dr.  George  Campbell.     "  The  word  baptizein,  both 

*  Note  D,  Appendix. 


54  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

in  sacred  authors  and  in  clarsical,  signifies  to  dip,  to 
plunge,  to  immerse.  It  is  always  construed  suitably  to 
this  meaning." 

Augusti.  "The  word  baplisni,  according  to  ety- 
mology and  usage,  signifies,  to  immerse,  tn  submerge^ 
&c. ;  and  the  choice  of  the  word  betrays  an  age  in 
which  the  later  custom  of  spi inkling,  had  not  l^een 
introduced." 

Dr.  Knapp.  "  Baptizein  properly  signifies  to  im- 
merse, to  dip  in,  like  the  German  taufen,to  wash  by  im- 
7nersion." 

Dr.  Chalmers.  "The  original  meaning  of  the  word 
baptism  is  immersinn.^^ 

On  these  explicit  declarations  from  men  of  the  high- 
est  distinction  for  learning  and  influence  in  the  Pedo- 
baiptist  ranks — and  the  list,  were  it  necessary,  might 
he  greatly  enlarged — comment  is  needless.  Is  it  ob- 
jected to  the  use  made  of  these  quotations,  that  they 
are  the  language  of  Pedobaptists,  who,  of  course,  be- 
lieved that  sprinkling  would  suffice  for  the  purpose  of 
baptism?  This  we  have  admitted.  And  it  is  this  fact 
which  gives  our  argument  its  peculiar  force.  For 
whatever  their  attempts  to  justify  the  practice  of  their 
own  churches,  their  testimony  with  regard  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  is  only  thereby  rendered  the  more 
valuable  and  decisive. 

To  enable  the  reader,  however,  to  judge  for  himself 
respecting  its  proper  import,  we  shall  introduce  a  few 
examples  of  its  use  as  it  occurs  in  ancient  Greek  au- 
thors. 

Pindar,  a  celebrated  Greek  ])oet,  expresses  himself 
thus,  "  As  when  a  net  is  cast  into  the  sea,  the  cork 
swims  al)ove,  sol  am  unhaptized,^' 

Strabo,  a  cotemporary  of  the  apostles,  speaking  of  a 


ITSFORM.  55 

lake  in  Sicily,  sa5's,  "  Things  that  elsewhere  will  not 
float,  do  not  become  baptized  (do  not  sink)  in  the 
waters  of  tliis  lake,  but  sunm  like  wood." 

Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian,  describing  an  en- 
gagement between  the  Jews  and  Romans,  on  the  lake 
of  Genesereth,  says  the  former,  "  when  they  ventured 
to  come  near  the  Romans,  were  baptized  (submerged) 
together  with  their  ships  ;"  and  adds,  "If  any  of  those 
who  had  been  baptized^  raised  their  heads  out  of  the 
water,  they  were  either  killed  by  the  darts,  or  caught 
by  the  vessels." 

In  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
baptizo  is  used  in  2d  Kings  5:  14,  as  a  translation  of 
the  Hebrew  tabal^  which,  it  is  universally  admitted, 
means  to  dip  or  immerse.  "AndNaaman  went  down 
and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan." 

The  same  usage  appears  in  the  Christian  Fathers. 
A  single  example  from  Gregory  Nazianzen  must 
suffice.  "Let  us  not  load  ourselves  with  a  heavier  bur- 
den than  we  can  bear,  lest  we  be  baptized  (submerged) 
with  the  ship  and  crew." 

Examples  of  this  kind  might  be  greatly  multiplied. 
But  these  will  suffice  to  show  in  what  sense  the  word 
baptize  was  used  by  those  who  anciently  employed 
the  Greek  language.  They  teach  us,  that  not  merely 
pagan  Greeks,  but  Jewish  and  Christian  writers,  those 
familiar  with  all  the  rites  of  Judaism  and  Christianity, 
those  even  who  practiced  Christian  baptism,  regarded 
the  word  as  having,  like  every  other,  a  definite  mean- 
ing, as  designating  a  specific  action ;  and  that  action 
they  have  declared  to  be  immersion. 

The  import  of  the  command,  "Arise  and  be  bapti- 
zed^^  may,  therefore,  be  considered  settled.  It  is, 
properly  expressed,  a  command  to  be  immersed.     Had 


56  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

Christ  or  his  apostles  used  the  term  baptize  in  some 
new,  or  even  unusual  sense,  their  meaning  would  not 
have  been  apprehended  ;  or  rather,  they  would  have 
enjoined,  according  to  the  established  impoit  of  the 
word,  one  thing,  while  in  reality  they  intended  anoth- 
er, failing  to  employ  the  appropriate  terms  to  express 
it.  Words  denoting  external  acts  do  not  change  their 
signification  simply  because  they  are  applied  to  reli- 
gious transactions.  When  Moses  is  said  to  have 
sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices  for  the  purpose  of 
making  atonement,  the  term  employed  denotes  to 
sprinkle  no  less  than  if  it  had  been  used  in  any  other 
connexion.  When  Christ  commanded  his  disciples,  in 
instituting  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper,  to  eat  and  to 
drink,  he  obviously  used  these  terms  in  their  usual 
acceptation.  And  when  he  requires  his  followers  to 
be  baptized,  that  is,  immersed,  in  water,  on  profession 
of  faith  in  him,  the  import  of  the  command  is  as  defi- 
nite and  as  obvious  as  though  immersion  in  water  for 
any  other  purpose  were  required. 

It  may  not  be  amiss,  however,  to  inquire,  Is  any 
additional  light  cast  upon  the  meaning  of  the  word,  by 
its  use  as  applied  directly  to  the  ordinance  of  Christian 
baptism?  The  answer  to  this  inquiry,  while  it  may 
serve  to  confirm  the  position  already  established,  will 
also  have  the  effect  to  meet  an  argument  much  relied 
on  by  certain  Pedobaptist  writers,  founded  on  what 
they  are  pleased  to  style  "the  sacred  use  of  the  term." 

In  our  investigation  of  this  point  we  must  rely  espe- 
cially on  proof  furnished  by  the  New  Testament,  and 
by  writers  who  were  either  cotemporary  with  the  apos- 
tles, or  their  immediate  successors.  The  word  bap- 
tism after  being  appropiiated  for  centuries  to  the  initia- 
tory ordinance  of  Christianity,  would  naturally  come 


ITS     FORM.  57 

to  be  used  cliit'ily  as  a  technical  term, — as  a  simple 
name  of  the  rite ;  and  as  such  it  would  express,  not 
the  form  of  the  rite  only,  but  its  object,  its  uses,  and 
whatever  else  might  be  supposed  to  pertain  to  it.  And 
it  could  hardly  fail  that  it  would  frequently  be  used  in 
connexions  where  its  proper  siijnification  would  be  left 
entirely  out  of  view.  Especially  might  this  be  expect- 
ed after  a  variety  of  superstitious  doctrines  and  rites 
became  connected  with  the  ordinance,  and  the  cere- 
mony of  affusion  was  in  some  special  cases  substituted 
for  a  proper  baptism.  For  illustration  we  need  simply 
refer  to  the  customary  use  of  taufen  the  word  in  the 
German  language  appropriated  to  Christian  baptism, 
and  properly  signifying,  accoiding  to  the  testimony  of 
the  most  distinguished  German  schohirs,  to  dip,  to  im- 
merse *  Compare  also  the  use  of  the  Dutch  doojjen, 
the  Swedish  dopa,  and  the  Danish  dobe. 

Examples  in  which  the  Cliristian  Fathers  may  have 
used  the  word  baptism  in  a  manner  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  of  immersion,  are,  consequently,  of  no  author- 
ity in  determining  its  meaning  when  it  became  appro- 
priated to  the  Christian  ordinance,  or  as  used  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles.  Most,  if  not  all  the  ins^tances  in 
which  such  examples  may  be  claimed,  at  least  from 
the  earlier  Christian  writers,  are  referable  to  what  Mr. 
Beecher  styles,  the  use  of  the  term  "  as  the  appropria- 
ted name  of  the  rite  of  Christian  baptism."  "In  this 
case,"  says  Mr.  Beecher,  "it  approximates  in  its  use, 
toward  a  proper  name,  or  a  technical  term,  i.  e.  the 
attention  of  the  mind  is  abstracted  from  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  though  it  is  in  fact  significant,  and  is  fixed 
upon  the  rite  for  which  it  stands."     Mr.  Beecher  even 

*  Adelung's  Dictionary,  Luther's  Sermon  on  Baptism,  Knapp's  The- 
ology, Vol.  2,  p.  510. 


58 


CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 


admits  that  *'what  would  be  incongruous  uses,  if  re- 
ferred to  the  sense  merely,  are  not  so  if  referred  to  the 
rite."  Attention  to  this  admitted  principle, — which  is 
certainly  expressed  in  as  strong  terms  as  could  be  de- 
sired,— is  all  that  is  necessary  to  show  the  groundless- 
ness of  the  assumption  that  the  Christian  Fathers  used 
the  term  baptism  with  vaiious  significations.*  It  will 
account  for  the  fact  that  they  sometimes  compare  bap- 
tism, that  is,  the  rite  designated  by  that  name,  with 
certain  Jewish  rites,  which  however  unlike  in  form, 
were  yet  conceived  to  be  in  many  respects  of  similar 
import.  On  the  same  principle  they  compare  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  Supper,  with  institutions  enjoined  in  the 
Old  Testament,  as  the  passover;  although  in  the  man- 
ner of  their  observance,  and  in  the  signification  of  the 
terms  by  which  they  were  usually  designated,  they 
were  very  dissimilar.  Nor  is  there  any  difficulty  in 
the  fact  that  tliey  familiarly  designated  baptism  by  a 
variety  of  appellations,  as  initiation,  illumination,  re- 
generation, remission,  purification,  etc.  The  rite  on 
account  of  something  pertaining  to  its  nature  or  its 
effects,  they  conceived  might  properly  be  designated 
by  each  of  these  terms.  But  it  would  be  idle  to  con- 
tend that  they  considered  the  word  as  having  so  many 
diverse  and  disconnected  significations.  This  would 
involve  a  contradiction. 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  they  customarily  employ- 
ed the  word  when  applied  to  Christian  baptism  in  the 
specific  sense  of  immersion.  Chrysostom,  commenting 
on  Mark  10:  59,  says,  "He  calls  his  cross  baptism, 
for  as  we  are  easily  baptized  (immersed) ,  and  rise 
again,  so  he  having  died,  easily  rose  again  when  he 
would."     Again,  after  alluding  to  the  supposed  nature 

*  Beecher's  Articles  on  Baptism,  §  63  and  64. 


ITS    FORM.  59 

or  effect  of  baptism  as  a  rite  of  purification,  he  says, 
"As  he  who  is  baptized  (immersed)  in  water,  rises 
with  great  ease,  being  nothing  hindered  by  the  nature 
of  the  waters,  so  he  having  descended  into  death  rose 
again  with  ease  ;  for  this  reason  he  calls  it  [his  sub- 
mission to  deathj  baptism."  These  passages,  which 
are  simply  specimens  of  many  that  might  be  adduced,* 
are  quoted  by  Mr.  Beecher,  and  admitted  by  him  to  be 
examples  of  the  use  of  the  term  baptize  in  the  sense, 
to  immerse.  They  may  be  regarded  a  sufficient  index 
to  its  customary  use  among  the  Christian  Fathers.  If 
the  phrase  "  baptized  in  water,"  as  used  by  Chrysos- 
tom,  means  "  immersed  in  water,"  as  Mr.  Beecher 
himself  translates  it,  we  may,  even  without  further 
evidence,  safely  conclude  that  it  is  to  be  taken  in  the 
same  sense,  as  used  by  his  cotemporaries.  They,  be- 
yond all  doubt,  regarded  the  word  as  signifying  prop- 
erly to  immerse.  And  any  examples  that  may  be  ad- 
duced as  instances  of  inconsistent  usage  may  easily  be 
referred  to  the  technical  use  of  the  term.  If  established 
as  such  they  would  no  more  avail  in  determining  its 
use  in  the  New  Testament,  than  does  the  present 
usage  with  respect  to  the   German  taufen,  and  the 

*  In  a  brief  examination  of  the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  the 
author  has  noticed  that  examples  of  the  use  ofBa;rrifa)  (baptizo)in  the 
sense  to  immerse,  equally  interesting  and  decisive  with  those  here 
adduced,  are  of  frequent  occurrence.  Among  these  are  the  passages 
presented  in  Note  C  of  the  Appendix,  as  also  the  quotations  from  Basil 
and  Chrysostom,  on  page  36.  Indeed  their  customary  use,  when 
speaking  of  Christian  baptism,  of  such  expressions  as,  "we  are  bapti- 
zed into  water,"  BairTi^oncda  ds  vSo^p,  (Basil,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  chap. 
15"),  or  "  in  the  water,"  Iv  rw  ■BJon,  or  "  in  the  waters,"  iv  tois  iiiacnv, 
ought  in  itself  to  suffice  for  every  purpose  of  conviction.  To  suppose 
they  intended  to  say — sprinkled  or  purified  into  water,  would  be  ab- 
surd. Immersed  into  water,  or  m  the  waters,  is  the  only  meaning 
that  can  possibly  be  attached  to  their  language. 


60  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 

Dutch  doopen^  determine  the  sense  in  which  these 
terms  were  used  at  the  time  thoy  became  appropriated 
to  the  ordinance  of  Clirisiian  ba})tism.* 

In  further  confirmation  of  the  position  under  consid- 
eration, we  appeal  to  the  manner  in  which  the  word 
baptizo  was  translated  hy  the  primitive.  Christians  into 
other  languages.  Among"  all  the  translations  of  the 
New  Testament  made  previously  to  the  eighth  century, 
it  is  never  rendered  by  any  teim  that  does  not  express 
immersion. t 

In  the  Old  Syriac  version,  executed  as  early  as  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century,  baptism  is  expressed 
by  a  derivative  of  amad.  The  same  term  is  also  used 
in  a  sense  connected  with  baptistery,  and  in  John  5  : 
2-7,  is  put  for  pool : — "I  have  no  man  to  put  me  into 
the  poof."  The  verb  a?7zar/ employed  as  the  translation 
of  baptizo,  is  defined  by  Buxtorf  in  his  Chaldee  and 
Syriac  Lexicon  thus,  to  baptize,  to  dip,  to  bathe.  Schind- 
ler  gives  as  its  meaning,  to  baptize,  to  immerse  into 
water,  to  dip,  to  bathe.  Beza  also  remarks  that  it  prop- 
erly means  to  immerse^  and  never  to  wash  except  as  a 
consequence  of  immersion.  It  is  used  in  the  Syriac 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Num.  31 :  23,  to 
express  the  act  of  putting  into  ivater.  Com.  Lev.  11  : 
32.  It  is  used  by  Ephraim  Syrus  of  the  fourth  century 
to  express  the  immersion  of  Christ  in  the  Jordan. 
"How  wonderful  is  it  that  thy  footsteps  were  planted 
on  the  waters;  that  the  great  sea  should  subject  itself 
to  thy  feet ;  and   that  yet  at  a  small  river  that  same 


*  Note  E.  Appendix. 

f  For  the  facts  here  stated  in  reference  to  the  early  translations,  the 
author  is  indebted  chiefly  to"  a  Critical  Examination  of  the  rendering 
of  the  word  BaTrTifco  in  the  ancient  and  many  of  the  modern  versions  of 
the  New  Testament,"  by  F.  W.  Gotch,  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin. 


ITS      FORM.  61 

head  of  thine  should  be  subjected  to  be  bowed  down 
and  baptized  in  it !"  Here  the  head  of  the  Redeemer 
is  represented  as  being  bowed  down  a.nd  thus  baptized  in 
the  river.  This  is  contrasted  with  the  sea  being  sub- 
jected to  his  feet.  As  the  waters  were  beneath  his 
feet,  so  his  head  was  placed  beneath  the  water  :  and 
this  is  expressed  by  the  verb  amad.  Any  sense  but 
immersion  is,  of  course,  entirely  precluded.  This,  let 
it  be  borne  in  mind,  is  the  word  which  was  selected,  as 
early  as  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  to  express 
in  the  Jews'  vernacular  tongue  the  meaning  of  baptize 
as  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament. 

In  the  ancient  Egyptian  or  Coptic  version  of  the 
New  Testament,  made  during  the  third  century,  bap- 
tize is  translated  by  a  term  which  signifies,  fo  immerse^ 
to>  submerge,  to  sink.  It  is  used  in  many  passages  not 
relating  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  which  will  be  to 
all  a  sufficient  index  to  its  meaning  ;  as  Mat.  18  :  6, — 
*^  submerged  in  the  depths  of  the  sea;"  Mat.  14:  30, 
— "and  beginning  to  sink,  he  cried,  saying.  Lord  save 
me." 

In  the  Gothic  version,  executed  in  the  fourth  centu- 
ry, the  term  employed  as  a  translation  of  baptize,  is 
daupjan,  from  which  is  derived  our  word  dip,  and 
which  it  is  universally  admitted  means  properly,  to 
dip,  to  immerse. 

These  examples  are  sufficient  to  illustrate  the  sense 
in  which  baptize  was  understood  by  the  ancient  trans- 
lators of  the  New  Testament.  In  no  instance  for  more 
than  seven  centuries  was  it  translated  by  any  term  that 
did  net  involve  the  idea  of  immersion.  The  evidence 
furnished  by  this  fact,  we  think,  is  irresistible.  Here 
were  men  perfectly  familiar  with  the  Greek  language 
as  it  was  used  by  the  apostles,  some  of  them  living 
6 


62  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

almost  in  the  apostolic  age  ;  they  wish  to  express  in 
the  languages  of  the  nations  where  the  gospel  had 
been  introduced,  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize  ; 
and  they  invariably  select  terms  denoting  immersion. 
They  thus  declare  in  the  most  direct  and  explicit  man- 
ner that  this  was  its  import  as  employed  in  the  New 
Testament.  They  declare  that  Christ  commanded  his 
disciples  to  "go  and  disciple  all  nations,  immersing' 
them  ;" — that  he  requires  those  who  hear  the  message 
of  the  gospel,  to  "repent  and  be  immersed.^^  We  can 
scarcely  conceive  of  proof  more  direct  or  more  decisive 
for  establishing  the  meaning  of  the  term  baptism,  as 
applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  initiatory  ordi- 
nance of  the  gospel. 

But  it  is  unnecessary,  in  order  to  establish  this  point, 
that  we  go  beyond  the  New  Testament. 

The  meaning  of  baptizo  is  sufficiently  apparent 
from  1  Cor.  10  :  1,  2.  "Moreover,  bretiiren,  I  would 
not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  how  that  all  our  fathers 
were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea; 
and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea.^^  The  Israelites  in  descending  into  the  bed  of 
the  sea,  while  the  water  surrounded  them  on  all  sides, 
and  the  cloud  hung  over  their  heads,  were  literally 
immersed.  That  this  is  what  the  apostle  intended  to 
express  in  saying  tjiat  they  were  baptized,  is  evident 
from  the  nature  of  his  phraseology,  as  well  as  from  his 
particular  description  of  their  condition.  He  is  draw- 
ing an  analogy  between  incidents  connected  with  their 
history,  and  facts  pertaining  to  the  Christian  church. 
And  the  only  satisfactory  reason  that  can  be  assigned 
for  his  noticing  the  fact  that  the  Israelites  were  under 
the  cloud,  and  passed  through  the  sea,  is,  that  he  wished 
thus  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  succeeding  declaration. 


ITS     FORM.  ~  63 

by  showing  how  they  were  baptized.  It  is  in  this  re- 
spect alone  that  the  circumstance  can  be  compared 
directly  with  any  thing  relating  to  the  experience  of 
christians.  And  hence  it  is  further  stated,  that  "  they 
were  bajDtized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.^^  This  is 
precisely  the  phraseology  to  correspond  with  the  idea 
of  immersion  ;  and  we  cannot  conceive  why  it  should 
be  employed  for  any  other  purpose.  That  which  not 
merely  passes  throush,  but  is  in  and  under  watery 
elements,  is  necessarily  immersed;  and  the  very  repre- 
sentation shows  that  immersion  is  the  idea  intended  to 
be  expressed. 

Examples  still  more  decisive,  if  possible,  are  found 
in  Mat.  20  :  22,  23 ;  Mark  10  :  38,  39  ;  Luke  12  :  50  J 
where  the  Saviour  compares  his  sufferings  and  death  to 
baptism.  "  Are  ye  able  to  be  baptized  with  the  bap- 
tism that  I  am  baptized  with  ?" — "I  have  a  baptism 
to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be 
accomplished."  That  in  these  passages  the  term  bap- 
tism is  figuratively  used  in  the  sense  of  immersion  or 
overwhelming  is  generally,  if  not  universally,  admit- 
ted. It  describes,  in  accordance  with  a  usage  common 
to  most  languages,  the  depth  or  overwhelming  nature 
of  the  Saviour's  sufferings.  See  Ps.  69  :  2 ;  42 :  7. 
The  meaning  is  expressed  by  Dr.  Doddridge  thus, — 
*'I  shall  be  shortly  bathed,  as  it  were,  in  blood,  and 
plunged  in  the  most  overwhelming  distress."  Dr. 
Bloomfield,  commenting  on  Mat.  20  :  22,  says,  "This 
metaphor,  of  immersion  in  water,  as  expressive  of 
b^ng  overwhelmed  by  affliction,  is  frequent  both  in 
the  Scriptural  and  Classical  writers."  Even  President 
Beecher  admits  that  the  term  is  used  in  these  instances 
"in  the  sense,  to  overwhelm  with  cares  and  agony  of 
body  and  mind." 


64  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

It  only  remains,  tliorefore,  in  order  to  establish  the 
point  now  under  consideration,  that  we  show  that  in 
these  passages  there  is  an  allusion  to  Christian  bap- 
tism, or  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  compared  with 
the  act  required  by  that  ordinance.  And  to  decide  this 
point  we  shall  appeal  directly  to  the  nature  of  the 
phraseology.  This  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the 
ground  that  the  figure  introduced  is  in  some  way  iden- 
tified with  Christian  baptism.  It  implies  that  Christ 
compares  his  sufferings  to  some  specific  act  with  which 
his  disciples  were  fatniliar,  and  concerning  which  sim- 
ilar phraseology  ivas  customarily  employed.  Otherwise, 
why  should  he  speak  of  a  baptism  which  he  was  to  ex- 
perience ? — such  a  use  of  the  noun  baptisma,  would 
obviously  be  unnatural,  if  not  unprecedented.  Why- 
does  he  represent  his  disciples  as  being  baptized  with 
this  baptism?  Why  say,  "I  have  a  baptism?"  and 
especially,  "  I  hnve  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with  V 
Had  he  intended  merely  to  convey  the  simple  idea  that 
he  was  about  to  be  overwhelmed  with  sufferings  or  im- 
mersed in  affliction,  irrespectively  of  an}'  allusion  to 
Christian  baptism,  it  is  unaccountable  that  he  should 
have  said,  "I  ham  an  overwhelming  to  be  overwhelmed 
with ;"  or,  "  Are  ye  able  to  be  immersed  with  the  im- 
mersion that  I  am  immersed  with  ?"  Such  phraseology 
would  be  without  a  parallel  in  any  language  ancient 
or  modern.  But  on  the  admission  that  Christ  com- 
pares his  sufferings  to  the  act  required  of  his  disciples 
in  Christian  baptism,  all  is  natural  and  lucid  ;  the  lan- 
guage is  not  only  appropriate,  but  peculiarly  forcible  ; 
— as  if  he  had  said,  'Have  you  been  the  subjects  of  an 
immersion  unto  repentance?  Have  you  been  immer- 
sed on  profession  of  your  faith  in  me  ?  I,  too,  have  an 
immersion  to  be  immersed  with,  and  how  am  I  strait- 


ITS    FORM.  65 

ened  till  it  he  accomplished.  Are  ye  able  to  be  im- 
mersed with  the  immersion  that  I  am  immersed  wilht 
an  immersion  in  suffering,  agony,  and  death  V 

It  is  also  worthy  of  notice,  that  inasmuch  as  the  dis- 
ciples had  been  accustomed  to  hear  the  phraseology 
employed  in  these  passages  used  with  reference  to  the 
rite  of  baptism, — com.  Luke  7  :  29  ;  Acts  19  :  3,  4, — 
they  would  naturally  conclude  that  it  was  used  in  the 
same  sense  in  these  instances.  "  To  be  baptized  with 
the  baptism  of  John," "to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
of  repentance,"  &c.,  were  expressions  with  which  they 
were  familiar.  And,  withont  some  express  intimation 
to  the  contrary,  they  would  inevitably  infer,  in  hearing 
their  Master  speak  of  having  a  baptism  to  be  baptized 
with,  that  the  language  was  used  in  the  same  general 
acceptation,  as  in  other  cases.  This  was  the  light  in 
which  it  was  uniformly  understood  by  the  Christian 
Fathers ;  and  this,  we  doubt  not,  is  the  first,  and 
almost  irresistible,  impression  made  on  the  mind  of 
every  reader  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  these  passages,  then,  it  is  conceded  the  figure  of 
an  immersion  or  overwhelming  is  introduced  :  baptizo 
is  figuratively  used  in  the  sense  of  immerse  or  over- 
whelm. This  fact  being  admitted,  (and  without  the 
admission  it  is  not  possible  to  explain  the  language,) 
the  point  under  consideration  will  in  most  minds  be 
decided.  It  will  be  impossible  to  convince  the  mass  of 
reflecting  minds  that  there  is  no  allusion  in  these  pas- 
sages to  Christian  baptism,  or  that  the  terms  employed 
are  not  used  in  the  same  general  acceptation  as  when 
applied  to  that  ordinance.  If,  then,  the  principle  laid 
down  by  Mr.  Beecher,  that  where  allusion  is  had  to 
Christian  baptism,  the  word  baptize  must  uniformly  be 
taken  in  the  same  sense,  be  correct,  (and  its  correct- 
6* 


66  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

ness  is,  Ave  think,  too  obvious  to  be  disputed,)  these  ex- 
amples are  decisive  with  respect  to  iis  meaning  in  the 
New  Testament.  It  must  either  be  denied  that  in 
Mat.  20  :  22  ;  Luke  12  :  50,  there  is  any  aUusion  to 
baptism  as  that  term  was  commonly  employed  by 
those  whom  our  Lord  was  addressing  ;  or  it  must  be 
admitted  on  Mr.  Beecher's  own  principles,  that  uni- 
formly in  the  language  of  Clirist  and  his  apostles  to 
baptize  is  to  immerse.  These  examples,  especially  in 
connexion  with  1  Cor.  10:  1,  2,  and  I  may  add,  Rom. 
6:4;  Col.  2:  12;  Mark  1:5;  Mat.  3:  6,  establish 
the  point  beyond  all  ground  of  dispute. 


SECTION   IV. 

IMMERSION    THE    PRACTICE    OF   THE    AP0STLE8    AND    PRIMITIVE 
CHRISTIANS. 

The  truth  of  the  position,  that  immersion  in  water  is 
essential  to  Christian  baptism,  is  further  evident  from 

THE  PRACTICE    OF   THE  APOSTLES  AND  PRIMITIVE  CHRIS- 
TIANS. 

That  the  notices  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament are  descriptive  of  immersion,  is  apparent  on 
other  grounds  than  the  testimony  of  the  word  itself. 
It  is  not  merely  affirmed,  in  accordance  with  what  we 
have  so  fully  shown  to  be  the  true  import  of  the  term, 
— "  and  they  that  believed  were  immersed ;'^  but  the 
circumstances  connected  with  the  administration  of  the 
ordinance  are  recorded  with  such  particularity,  as  in 
themselves  to  show  that  immersion  was  practiced.  It 
is  said  of  John,  that  he  baptized  the  people  "  in  the 
river  Jordan  ;" — "that  he  baptized  in  Enon,  because 


ITS     FORM.  67 

there  was  much  water  there."  Mark  1  :  5 ;  John  3  : 
23.  Of  Philip  and  the  Ethiopian  it  is  recorded,  that 
having  come  to  a  certain  water,  "  they  both  went  down 
into  the  water,"  and  baptism  having  been  performed, 
"  they  both  came  up  out  o/the  water."  Acts  8  :  36-39. 
In  Rom.  6:4;  Col.  2 :  12,  christians  in  general  are 
represented  as  buried  by  baptism, — a  description  which 
necessarily  involves  immersion,  and  which  may  be 
considered  decisive  with  respect  to  the  practice  of  the 
apostolic  churches. 

Not  less  decisive  is  the  testimony  of  the  earliest 
Christian  Fathers. 

Barnabas  and  Hermas,  or  the  epistles  ascribed  to 
them,  both  represent  baptism  as  being  administered  in 
connexion  with  "  going  down  into  the  water"  and 
"coming  up  out  of  it." 

Justin  Martyr  says  that  those  who  believed,  were 
"  led  to  a  place  where  there  was  water,"  and  "were 
then  bathed  in  the  water."  He  also  speaks  of  baptism 
being  performed  in  a  pool. 

Tertullian.  "There  is  no  difference  whether  one 
is  bathed  in  a  sea,  or  in  a  pool,  in  a  river,  or  in  a  foun- 
tain, in  a  lake,  or  in  a  bath.  Nor  is  there  any  differ- 
ence between  those  whom  John  immersed  in  the  Jor- 
dan, and  those  whom  Peter  immersed  in  the  Tiber." 

Immersion  is  thus  represented  as  being  the  uniform 
practice  of  the  Christians  in  those  early  times.  Nor  is 
there  any  evidence  or  intimation  of  a  departure  from 
this  practice  until  after  the  sentiment  began  to  be  en- 
tertained, that  the  efficacy  of  baptism  was  attributable 
in  no  small  degree  to  some  peculiar  sanctifying  power 
supposed  to  be  contained  in  the  water  of  baptism.  As 
this  sentiment  prevailed  the  manner  of  bringing  the 


68  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

mysterious  fluid  into  contact  with  the  body,  would 
naturally  be  considered  of  less  iniportance.  And,  it 
might  be  anticipated,  that  in  cases  of  supposed  neces- 
sity, some  other  mode  of  applying  it  than  immersion, 
would  be  resorted  to.* 

The  first  notice  of  any  such  innovation, — which  con- 
sisted in  a  copious  affusion  or  pouring  of  water  over  the 
body, — occurs  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  Thi?, 
however,  was  not  generally  regarded  as  conferring  the 
full  benefits  of  baptism.  Hence  it  was  practiced 
only  in  cases  of  sickness  and  supposed  necessity  ; — a 
circumstance  which  in  itself  is  a  sufficient  intimation 
that  it  was  considered  a  substitute  for  the  proper  ob- 
servance of  the  rite. 

About  the  middle  of  the  third  century  the  query  was 
proposed  to  Cyprian,  the  most  distinguished  African 
bishop  of  the  age,  whether  those  who  had  been  the 
subjects  of  such  a  transaction,  "could  be  regarded  as 
legitimate  Christians,  inasmuch  as  they  had  not  been 
bathed  in  the  salutary  water,  but  had  received  affu- 
sion." "Cyprian,"  says  the  Editor  of  the  Christian 
Review,  "is  not  prepared  to  give  a  decisive  answer, 
but  expresses  his  opinion,  and  says,  each  one  must 
settle  this  question  for  himself.  His  own  views  are 
stated  thus,  'When  there  is  a  pressing  necessity  with 
God's  indulgence.)  the  holy  ordinances,  though  out- 
wardly abridged,  confer  the  entire  blessing  on  those 
who  believe.'"  Cyprian  thus  directly  admits  that 
affusion,  instead  of  being  appointed  or  sanctioned  by 
Christ,  required  a  resort  to  the  indulgence  of  God,  and 

*  Prof.  Hahn  remarks  in  reference  to  infant  baptism,  "  It  arose  from 
false  views  of  original  sin,  and  of  the  magical  power  of  consecrated 
water."  The  same  remark,  in  part  at  least,  is  applicable  to  the 
origin  of  sprinkling. 


ITS     FORM.  69 

should  be  practiced  only  in  cases  of  urgent  necessity ; — 
that  it  was,  in  fact,  "  an  abridgement"  of  tlie  original 
institution  :  all  this,  notwithstanding  his  anxiety  to  find 
some  ground  on  which  to  justify  the  innovation. 

In  support  of  the  position  that  immersion  was  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  Christians,  we  might  appeal 
to  the  testimony  of  many  of  the  most  distinguished 
Pedobaptist  historians  and  divines  of  different  ages. 
A  single  quotation,  from  the  Theological  Works  of  the 
celebrated  Dr.  Knapp  of  Halle,  must  suffice.  His  lan- 
guage, as  translated  by  Mr.  Woods,  is  as  follows, — 
'■''  Immersion  is  peculiarly  agreeable  to  the  institution  of 
Christ,  and  to  the  practice  of  the  apostolical  church, 
and  so  even  John  baptized ;  and  immersion  remained 
common  for  a  long  time  after ;  except  that  in  the  third 
century,  and  perhaps  earlier,  the  baptism  of  the  sick, 
(baptismaclinicorum) ,  was  performed  by  sprinkling  or 
affusion.  Still  some  would  not  acknowledge  this  to  be 
true  baptism,  and  controversy  arose  concerning  it, — so 
unheard  of  was  it  at  that  time  to  baptize  by  simple 
affusion.  Cyprian  first  defended  baptism  by  sprink- 
ling, when  necessity  called  for  it;  but  cautiously,  and 
with  much  limitation.  By  degrees,  however,  this 
mode  of  baptism  became  more  customary,  probably 
because  it  was  found  more  convenient ;  especially  was 
this  the  case  after  the  seventh  century,  and  in  the 
Western  Church;  but  it  did  not  become  universal  until 
the  commencement  of  the  fourteenth  century.  Yet 
Thomas  Aquinas  had  approved  and  promoted  this  in- 
novation, more  than  a  hundred  years  before.  In  the 
Greek  and  Eastern  Church  they  still  held  to  immer- 
sion. It  would  have  been  better  to  have  adhered  gen- 
erally to  the  ancient  practice,  as  even  Luther  and  Cal- 
vin allowed." 


70  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

Wh?it  more  could  any  Baptist  writer  have  said  ? 
Dr.  Knapp,  although  he  attempts  in  the  best  manner 
he  is  able,  to  defend  the  practice  of  his  own  church, 
admits  that  it  is  an  innovation ; — that  immersion  was 
the  practice  of  John,  and  of  the  apostolic  churches,  and 
that  there  is  no  proof  of  any  exception  to  this  practice, 
even  in  case  of  the  sick,  until  the  third  century ; — that 
previousl)'^  to  this  time  affusion  appears  to  have  been 
unheard  of; — that  upon  its  introduction  it  met  with 
resistance^  and  was  at  first  defended  only  with  caution 
and  m}ick  limitation  ; — and  that  even  after  it  began  to 
be  allowed  in  cases  of  supposed  necessity,  immersion 
continued  to  be  the  common  practice  for  many  centu- 
ries. It  will  be  particularly  noted,  that  no  proof  is 
claimed  for  the  introduction  of  affusion,  even  incase  of 
the  sick,  previously  to  the  third  century. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  the  notices  of  affusion 
which  occur  in  writers  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries, 
80  far  from  furnishing  any  ground  for  regarding  the 
practice  apostolic,  present  the  strongest  possible  proof 
to  the  contrary.  The  evidence  is  far  more  conclusive, 
than  if  all  allusion  to  such  a  practice  had  been  omit- 
ted. We  not  only  have  it  conceded  that  affusion  was 
an  innovation,  but  the  liglit  in  which  it  was  viewed 
upon  its  introduction,  the  cases  to  which  it  was  restrict- 
ed, and  the  causes  which  led  to  it,  are  stated,  and  be- 
come constituent  parts  of  the  history. 

We  thus,  from  a  simple  examination  of  the  history 
of  the  church  subsequent  to  the  apostolic  age,  conclude 
with  a  confidence  amounting  almost  to  absolute  cer- 
tainty, that  immersion  was  the  invariable  practice  of 
the  first  Christians.  The  same  fact  is  established, 
while  the  practice  is  also  shown  to  be  of  divine  ap- 
pointment, by  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament. 


ITS     FORM.  71 

In  concluding  our  remarks  in  relation  lo  the  act 
required  in  Christian  baptism,  we  may  be  allowed 
briefly  to  revert  to  the  several  points  that  have  come 
under  examination,  reversing  the  order  in  which  they 
have  been  considered.  We  have  shown  from  the 
early  history  of  the  church,  that  immersion  was  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  Christians ;  and  that  there  is 
no  proof  that  affusion  was  resorted  to  in  any  case  pre- 
viously to  the  third  century.  We  have  shown  that 
immersion  alone  is  sanctioned  by  the  example  of  the 
apostles  and  their  companions,  as  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament.  We  have  sliown  that  the  very  meaning 
of  the  word  baptize  is  to  immerse:  and  that  the  ex- 
press injunction  of  the  Master  is,  consequently, — "Re- 
pent and  he  immersed.^''  And,  in  addition  to  all  this, 
we  have  shown  that  nothing  short  of  immersion  can 
fulfill  the  design  of  the  ordinance  as  a  symbolical  in- 
stitution. No  other  ceremony  called  baptism  repre- 
sents the  washing  away  of  sin.  No  other,  as  is  uni- 
versally admitted,  is  a  symbol  of  spiritual  conformity  to 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ;  and  thus  points 
directly  to  the  great  facts  which  lie  at  the  foundation 
of  the  Christian  scheme.  In  any  thing  but  immersion, 
the  significancy  of  the  ordinance  is  entirely  lost^  by 
being,  either  exchanged,  or  unconditionally  set  aside. 

From  what  other  source  could  an  argument  possibly 
be  deduced  ?  The  evidence  showing  immersion  to  be 
the' will  of  Christ,  is  not  merely  decisive  ;  it  is  abso- 
lutely complete.  The  example  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, his  express  injunction  to  be  immersed,  and  even 
the  very  design  of  his  ordinance  as  a  symbolical  insti- 
tution, all,  must  be  disregarded  and  set  aside,  or  im- 
mersion must  be  practiced. 


CHA.PTER    III. 

THE     SUBJECTS      OF      BAPTISM. 


SECTION  I. 


BELIEVERS    SHOWN    TO    BE    THE    ONLY    PROPER   SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM  BY  ITS 
DESIGN. 

The  design  of  baptism  properly  considered,  will  de- 
cide the  question,  Who  are  the  proper  subjects  of 
the  ordinance  ?  It  will  show  that  they  are  such  only  as 
give  evidence  of  having  cordially  embraced  the  gos- 
pel. The  idea  that  the  unconverted,  and  even  infants, 
may  be  admitted  to  baptism,  could  have  originated  only 
in  erroneous  views  of  its  design. 

Is  the  ordinance  the  appointed  means  of  making  a 
public  profession  of  the  Christian  religion?  Does  the 
individual  baptized  declare  his  faith  in  Christ,  his  re- 
pentance of  sin,  his  change  of  character?  This  he 
cannot  do  in  truth,  unless  he  is  a  believer,  and  has  ac- 
tually become  changed.  Does  he  "  put  on  Christ," 
or  assume  the  badge  of  discipleship,  and  "  answer  a 
good  conscience  toward  God?"  This  implies  that  he 
has  chosen  Christ  for  his  Master,  and  is  actuated  by  a 
conscientious  regard  for  the  will  of  God.  Does  he  ex- 
press the  hope  that  his  sins  have  been  washed  away  1 
The  only  ground  on  which  such  a  hope  can  be  avowed, 
is  the  evidence  of  an  actual  change  of  heart.  Does  he 
declare  that  inasmuch  as  Christ  has  been  delivered  to 
death  for  his  offences,  and  raised  again  for  his  justifi- 
cation, he  has  become  dead  to  sin,  and  has  risen  to  new- 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  73 

ness  of  life?  Such  a  state  must  be  enjoyed  before  it  can 
properly  be  professed.  Baptism  administered  to  in- 
fants, or  to  unconverted  adults,  utterly  fails  of  meeting- 
the  design  of  the  ordinance  in  any  of  these  respects. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  practice  of  Pedobap- 
tist  churches  in  applying  baptism  to  infants,  is  palpably 
inconsistent  with  the  design  of  the  ordinance  as  ex- 
plained in  their  own  Confessions  of  faiih.  By  the 
Presbyterian  Church  baptism  is  represented  as  being  to 
the  party  baptized,  "  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  of  his  engrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration, 
of  remission  of  sins,  and  of  his  giving  up  unto  God 
through  Jesus  Christ,  to  walk  in  newness  of  life." 
Now  to  say  nothing  of  the  idea  expressed  by  the  un- 
scriptural  use  of  the  term  "  seal,"  it  is  not  a  little  dif- 
ficult to  perceive  how  baptism  can  be  to  the  subject,  a 
sign  of  his  regeneration,  of  his  engrafting  into  Christ, 
and  of  the  giving  up  of  himself  unto  God  to  walk  in 
newness  of  life,  when  the  evidence  that  he  has  expe- 
rienced these  things  is  entirely  wanting. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  not  a  single  use  for  which 
baptism  was  instituted,  specified  in  the  New  Testament, 
will  apply  in  the  case  of  infants.  They  make  no  pro- 
fession, acknowledge  no  .  obligations,  manifest  no 
determination,  assume  no  responsibility,  exercise  no 
religious  feelings,  perform  no  act  whatever.  They  are 
merely  the  passive  unaflected  subjects  of  a  ceremony 
which  in  respect  to  them  can  have  no  scriptural  sig- 
nificancy.  The  design  of  baptism,  in  its  adnu'nistra- 
tion  to  infants,  is  accordingly  entirely  disregarded. 
7 


74  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 


SECTION  II. 

INFANT   BAPTISM     OPPOSED   TO   THE    NATL'RE     AND    DESIGN     OF     THE    GOSPEL 
DISPENSATION. 

The  position  established  in  the  preceding  section, 
is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  infant  bopf.ism  is  opposed 
to  the  nature  and  design  of  the  gospel  dispensation. 
The  Christian  economy  in  contrast  with  the  Jewish,  is 
distinguished  for  its  spirituality. 

1.  It  is  eminently  spiritual  and  personal  in  its  re- 
quirements. This  is  intimated  in  the  declaration  of 
Christ,  John  4:  21-23.  "Believe  me,  the  hour  com- 
eth,  when  ye  shall  neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  yet  at 
Jerusalem,  worship  the  Father. — The  hour  cometh, 
and  now  is,  when  the  true  worshippers  shall  worship 
the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth;  for  the  Father  seek- 
eth  such  to  worship  him."  The  gospel  addresses  its 
messages  to  men  as  individuals.  It  requires  every  one, 
without  respect  to  his  national  or  family  connexions, 
to  act  for  himself  Personal  faith,  personal  repent- 
ance, personal  obedience,  are  the  only  conditions  of 
enjoying  its  blessings.  I  scarcely  need  remark  how 
inconsistent  with  all  this,  is  the  administration  of  an 
ordinance  designed  as  a  means  of  professing  disciple- 
ship  to  Christ,  to  an  individual  on  the  ground  that  his 
parent  is  a  disciple,  or  more  properly,  its  observance 
by  the  parent  in  the  place  of  the  child.  If  this  be  re- 
quired, it  is  an  anomaly  in  the  Christian  system. 
What  other  gospel  requirement  can  be  performed  by 
one  in  behalf  of  another,  so  that  it  shall  not  be  obliga- 
tory on  the  latter?  Is  it  prayer?  Is  it  attention  to  the 
Scriptures  ?  Is  it  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  or  the 
Lord's  Supper?  Is  it  faith,  or  repentance,  or  a  godly 


ITS    SUBJECTS. 


ih 


life  1  We  may  have  been  blessed  with  parents  distin- 
guislied  for  their  obedience  to  all  these  requirements. 
But  are  they  on  that  account  any  the  less  personal 
duties?  And  why  should  it  be  otherwise  in  baptism? 
Or,  if  one  act  of  obedience  performed  by  our  parents, 
can  be  imputed  to  us,  why  may  not  every  other?  And 
where  is  the  necessity  of  personal  religion  at  all  ? 
This  is  the  result  to  which  the  principle  on  which  in- 
fant baptism  is  defended,  will,  if  carried  out,  inevita- 
bly lead. 

2,  The  gospel  is  equally  spiritual  and  personal  in 
what  it  prescribes  as  qualifications  for  membership  in 
the  kingdom  of  Christ.  The  design  of  Christ  in  intro- 
ducing the  gospel  dispensation,  was  to  call  out  and 
bring  together  a  peculiar  people,  separated  from  the 
world,  and  distinguished  for  their  personal  piety.  He 
designed  that  his  church,  unlike  the  Jewish  theocracy 
which  included  the  whole  nation,  should  consist  of 
individuals,  of  whatever  nation,  condition,  or  natural 
relationship,  who  should  become  changed  in  their 
hearts,  and  voluntarily  devote  themselves  to  his  ser- 
vice ;  that  it  should  be  "  a  spiritual  house,  built  up  of 
spiritual  stones,  a  royal  priesthood  to  offer  up  spiritual 
sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ."  1 
Pet.  2  :  5.  He  accordingly  establisheql  with  its  mem- 
bers "a  new  covenant,"  differing  essentially  from 
that  which  had  existed  under  the  Mosaic  economy, 
and  including  those  only  who  should  evince  that  the 
law  of  God  was  written  on  their  hearts.  Heb.  8 :  6-13. 

Such  being  the  character  which  he  designed  his 
church  should  possess,  how  could  he,  consistently  with 
the  carrying  out  of  this  design,  provide  that  multitudes 
incapable  of  exemplifying  this  character,  should  be 
introduced  into  its  precincts,  or  be  recognized  as  its 


76  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 

members  1  The  church,  in  the  application  of  such  a 
principle,  instead  of  being  kept  a  separate  body,  com- 
posed of  g-odly,  spiritual  members,  would  soon  be  com- 
mingled with  the  world,  and  become  a  mixed  cornmu- 
nity  like  the  Jewish  nation.  And  the  longer  the  prin- 
ciple should  continue  in  operation,  the  greater  would 
be  the  proportion  of  ungodly  members,  until  the  line 
of  demarkation  between  the  church  and  the  world 
would  be  destroyed,  and  the  very  object  for  which  the 
former  was  established,  defeated.  Such  has  been  the 
actual  result  in  every  instance  where  the  principles  of 
pedobaptism  have  been  left  unrestrained  to  work  out 
their  legitimate  effects. 

Unless  therefore  we  assume  that  our  Lord  intended 
to  thwart  the  very  design  for  which  he  established  his 
churcli  in  the  world,  we  must  conclude  that  he  made 
no  provision  for  introducing  into  its  pale  multitudes 
of  unregenerate  individuals  without  their  consent  or 
agency. 


SECTION  III. 

THE    ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    NATURE    AND    DESIGN    OF     THE    GOSPEL    DISPEN- 
SATION  CONTINUED. — AN    EXAMINATION  OF    PASSAGES    IN    WHICH    THE 
DISCIPLES    OF    CHRIST    ARE    COMPARED    TO    LITTLE    CHILDREN. 

That  the  baptism  and  church  membership  of  in- 
fants are  inconsistent  with  the  design  and  genius  of 
the  gospel,  is  particularly  apparent  from  those  passages 
in  the  discourses  of  Christ  in  which  he  compares  his 
disciples,  or  the  members  of  his  kingdom,  to  little 
children.  The  argument  derived  from  this  source  is, 
as  will  appear  upon  examination,  of  a  peculiarly  in- 
teresting and  decisive  character. 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  77 

In  Mat.  18:  1-4,  it  is  recorded,  "  At  the  same  time 
came  the  disciples  of  Jesus ;  saying,  Who  is  the  great- 
est in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  1  And  Jesus  called  a 
little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of 
them,  and  said,  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  Except  ye  be 
converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Whosoever  there- 
fore shall  humble  himself  as  this  little  child,  the  same 
is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  In  this  pass- 
age those  who  become  members  of  Christ's  kingdom, 
are  represented  as  assuming  the  character  and  taking 
the  position  of  little  children.  They  are  converted 
from  a  self-seeking,  self-exalting,  haughty  disposition, 
to  one  characterized  by  docility,  artlessness,  and  hu- 
mility. Such  being  their  character,  the  appellation 
little  children  may,  by  an  easy  and  natural  metaphor, 
be  very  properly  applied  directly  to  them.  Hence  it 
is  added,  verse  5,  "  Whoso  shall  receive  one  such  little 
child  in  my  name  receiveth  me."  In  the  parallel 
passage,  Mark  9  :  36,  37,  it  is  said,  "  He  took  a  child, 
and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  when  he  had 
taken  him  in  his  arms,  he  said  unto  them,  Whosoever 
shall  receive  one  of  such  children  in  my  name,  re- 
ceiveth me,  and  whosoever  shall  receive  me,  receiveth 
not  me,  but  him  that  sent  me." 

That  by  the  expressions,  "  one  such  little  child," 
"one  of  such  children,"  our  Lord  intended  to  desig- 
nate his  disciples,  will,  perhaps,  be  considered  too  obvi- 
ous to  admit  of  dispute.  It  may  not  be  amiss,  however, 
that  some  of  the  reasons  for  this  conclusion  should  be 
stated. 

1.  The  design  of  Christ  in  the  passages  in  which 
these  expressions  occur,  was  to  discourage  in  his  disci- 
ples a  spirit  of  selfish,  unholy  ambition.     How  this 


78 


CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 


could  be  done  by  his  reminding  them  of  the  treatment 
due  little  children  in  age,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive. 
Such  an  allusion  would  have  been,  as  far  as  we  can 
perceive,  entirely  irrelevant  to  his  purpose. 

2.  In  the  preceding  verses,  (Mat.  18,  vs.  3  and  4,) 
the  disciples  of  Christ  are  compared  to  little  children. 
They  even  are  represented  as  so  humbling  themselves 
as  to  assume  the  character  of  the  little  child  before 
them.  The  language  of  verse  5,  occuring  in  such  a 
connexion,  naturally  refers  to  the  same  subjects. 

3.  The  expression,  '■'■these  little  ones,"  in  verse  6,  is 
strikingly  similar  to  those  under  consideration  ;  and, 
as  the  words,  "  which  believe  in  me,"  are  subjoined, 
its  application  is  placed  beyond  all  dispute. 

4.  Tlie  contrast  presented  in  verses  5  and  6,  requires 
us  to  refer  the  language  of  both  to  the  same  subjects. 
''  Whoso  shall  j^eceive  one  such  little  child  in  my 
name  receivetli  me.  But  whoso  shall  offend  one  of 
these  little  ones  that  believe  in  me,  it  were  belter  for 
him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and 
that  he  were  drowned  in  the  depths  of  the  sea." 

5.  A  comparison  of  Mark  9:  36,  41,  with  Mat.  10: 
40,  42,  will  establish  the  same  fact.  The  language 
addressed  to  the  disciples  in  Mark,  ver.  41,  is  in  Mat- 
thew, ver.  42,  appli.'d  to  "  one  of  these  iiltle  ones;*' 
while,  ou  the  other  hand,  the  expression  "one  of  such 
children,"  in  ^lark,  ver.  36,  is  exchangc^d  in  Matthew, 
ver.  40,  for  the  personal  pronoun  designating  the  disci- 
ples,— "He  tliat  receiveth  ?/0M,  receiveth  me,  and  he 
that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him  that  sent  me." 

6.  It  i:s  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  sense  in  which  a 
little  child  simply  as  such,  can  be  received  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  and  especially,  in  such  a  manner  that 
it  can  be  legarded  a  reception  of  Christ  himself.     It 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  79 

would  be  idle  to  suppose  that  in  these  passages  our 
Lord  intended  to  identify  himself,  and  the  interest  of 
his  cause,  with  every  child  that  is  born  into  the  world. 
An  individual  to  be  received  in  the  name  and  in  the 
stead  of  Christ,  must  necessarily  be  his  disciple. 

In  the  light  of  these  suggestions  it  is  placed  beyond 
all  doubt  that  the  language  used  Mat.  18 :  5 ;  Mark  9: 
37,  was  intended  to  designate  the  disciples  of  Christ. 
The  same  considerations  are  equally  applicable  and 
decisive  in  determining  the  sense  of  the  parallel  pass- 
age, Luke  9,  46-48.  The  expression  in  verse  48, 
although  slightly  different  in  form,  is  obviously  the 
same  in  import.  Our  Lord  intimates,  as  in  Mat.  18: 
5  ;  Mark  9 :  37,  that  the  child  before  him  is  to  be  le- 
ceived  as  exemplified  in  the  character  of  his  disci- 
ples:— as  if  he  had  said,  'You  see  here  my  disciple  ; 
not  the  proud,  the  self-important,  the  "  exalted,"  but 
the  humble,  the  unassuming,  the  despised  by  the 
world.  Sucli  is  the  character  which  I  regard,  and 
which  is  to  be  esteemed  and  loved  for  my  sake. 
Whoso  shall  receive  one  exhibiting  this  character  re- 
ceiveth  me.'  This  mode  of  instruction  in  which,  by 
a  bold  and  striking  metaphor,  the  object  selected  for 
illustration  is  mentioned  in  place  of  the  thing  to  be 
illustrated,  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  discourses 
of  Christ.  See  Mat.  IS:  8,  9,  compared  with  verses 
5  and  6  ;  John  2  :  19;  Mat.  12 :  48-50;  John  6  :  50-58; 
Mat.  26:  26-28.  Compare  also  Mat.  5:  39,  40.  An 
additional  reason  to  those  already  adduced,  for  apply- 
ing the  language  in  Luke  9:  48,  to  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  is  found  in  the  declaration  that  is  subjoined, — 
"/or  he  that  is  least  among  ijoii  all,  the  same  shall  be 
great."  This  is  the  explanation  which  Christ  himself 
has  given  of  his  language  in   the  preceding  clause. 


80  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

Its  application,  or  import  is,  of  course,  on  this  ground 
alone,  definitely  determined. 

We  have  been,  perhaps  it  may  be  thought,  unne- 
cessarily parlicuhir  in  stating  the  reasons  for  a  position, 
which  doubtless  would  even  without  it  have  been  con- 
sidered too  obvious  to  admit  of  dispute,  that  we  might 
prepare  the  way  more  fully  for  the  satisfactory  exami- 
nation of  another  class  of  kindred  passages.  If  it  be 
true  that  the  little  ones  who  believe  in  Christ,  who 
are  to  be  received  in  his  name,  and  whose  reception 
he  acknowledges  as  a  reception  of  himself,  as  men- 
tioned in  Mat.  18  :  1-6,  etc  ,  are  his  disciples,  the 
same  interpretation  is  evidently  to  be  given  to  the 
passages,  Mat.  19  :  14  ;  Mark  10 :  14,  15  ;  Luke  18  : 
16,  17. 

The  account  as  given,  Mark  10  :  13-16,  is  as  follows, 
"  And  they  brought  young  children  unto  him  that  he 
should  touch  them ;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those 
who  brought  them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it  he  was 
much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them.  Suffer  the  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not;  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a 
little  child  shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took  them 
up  in  his  arms,  and  put  his  hands  on  them,  and 
blessed  them."  The  disciples  in  their  interference 
were  doubtless  influenced  by  the  same  feelings  as  led 
them  to  administer  a  similar  rel)uke  to  the  blind  man. 
of  Jericho.  Luke  18:  39.  They  wished  to  spare  their 
Master  the  annoyance  or  trouble  of  attending  to  the 
application.  But, — as  when  Peter  would  avert  his 
approaching  sufferings,  see  Mat.  16  :  22,  23, — he 
taught  them  that  their  kindness  was  misdirected.  Ac- 
tuated by  the  same  benevolent  disposition  which  led 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  81 

him  to  listen  to  the  cry  of  Baitimeus,  and  which  never 
allowed  him  to  disregard  a  sincere  and  reasonable  ap- 
plication for  his  blessing,  he  accedes  to  the  request  in 
behalf  of  the  little  children,  to  wit,  that  he  would 
"  lay  his  hands  on  them  and  pray,"  see  Mat.  19 :  13  ; 
and  the  more  readily,  we  may  suppose,  as  a  peculiarly 
favorable  opportunity  was  thus  afforded  for  illustrating 
the  character  befitting  the  members  of  his  kingdom. 
Hence  in  connexion  with  the  words,  "  Suffer  the*  little 
chiklren  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,"  he 
observes,  for  the  purpose  of  improving  the  incident  to 
the  instruction  of  his  disciples,  "  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God." 

That  our  Lord  here  speaks  of  those  who  "humble 
themselves  as  little  children,"  and  thus  assume  their 
character,  that  is,  of  his  disciples,  cannot,  we  think, 
admit  of  a  rational  doubt.  If  upon  other  occasions, 
after  calling  little  children  to  him,  and  taking  them  in 
his  arms,  and  holding  them  up  as  patterns  for  his  disci- 
ples, he  had  used  the  expressions,  "  one  such  little 
child,"  "one  of  such  children,"  thereby  designating, 
as  we  have  shown,  the  subjects  of  his  gospel,  we  are 
certainly  bound,  without  some  direct  intimation  to  the 
contrary,  to  give  the  words  ''  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  the  same  natural  exposition.  Express- 
ions so  strikingly  similar,  uttered  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances, and  obviously  for  a  similar  purpose,  must, 
according  to  all  correct  rules  of  interpretation,  have 
essentially  the  same  import.  There  is  no  necessity, 
however,  in  establishing  the  point,  that  reference  be 
had  to  parallel  passages.     The  passage,  Mark  10:  14, 

*  The  original  expression  for  "  the  little  children,"  is  the  same  in 
Mat.  19:  14,  Luke,  18  :  IG,  as  in  Mark  10:  14.  In  every  instance  the 
article  is  used. 


82 


CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 


15,  Luke  18:  16,  17,  presents  its  own  explanation. 
Our  Lord  having  uttered  the  words,  "  of  such  is  the 
kinkdom  of  God,"  immediately  adds,  "  Veiily,  I  say 
unto  you.  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  a  little  child,  shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein." 
The  manner  in  which  this  declaration  is  introduced, 
clearly  indicates  that  it  is  in  amplification  and  confirm- 
ation of  the  preceding  statement.  It  shows,  more- 
over, that  our  Lord  is  speaking  exclusively  of  those 
who  are  capable  of  receiving  the  kingdom  of  God. 
To  assert  in  one  sentence  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  composed  of  infants,  and  in  the  next  to  affirm  that 
it  includes  none  but  such  as  by  humbling  themselves 
receive  it,  would  be  apparently  a  contradiction. 

From  this  examination  of  the  several  passages  in 
the  New  Testament  in  which  christians  are  compared 
to  little  children,  the  following  facts  are  obvious. 

1.  The  only  qualifications  for  connexion  with  the 
kingdom  which  Christ  has  established  on  earth,  ad- 
mit led  by  the  gospel,  are  spiritual,  and  such  as  pertain 
to  voluntary  agents.  Its  members  are  exclusively  such 
as  receive  it  in  sincerity,  such  as  ''humble  themselves," 
or  become  "converted."  Infants,  of  course,  cannot 
be  included.  And  the  argument  derived  from  this 
source  is  the  more  interesting  and  conclusive,  inas- 
much as  the  qualifications  specified  are  presented  in 
connexion  with  direct  reference  to  little  ones.  The 
requisites  for  membersliip  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  of 
which  it  is  admitted  infants  are  destitute,  are  stated  in 
passages  in  which  their  case  is  prominently  brought  to 
view.  It  is  certain  therefore  they  cannot  be  reckon- 
ed in  the  number  of  those  who  are  designated  as 
members. 

2.  These  passages  render  it  evident  that  the  terms, 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  83 

*' little  ones,"  "  little  children,"  etc.,  are  applicable 
to  the  members  of  Christ's  kingdom  only  in  one  sense. 
They  teach  us  who  are  the  persons  related  to  him,  to 
whom  these  appellations  are  appropriate.  As,  when 
upon  a  certain  occasion  his  attention  was  called  to  his 
mother  and  his  brethren,  he  turned  to  his  disciples, 
and  said,  "Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethren," 
thus  intimating  that  he  recognized  no  other  relation- 
ship in  his  kingdom  than  that  of  discipleship ;  so 
whenever  little  children  became  the  objects  of  his 
notice,  he  seems  to  have  improved  the  opportunity  in 
teaching  that  his  disciples  were  the  little  ones  related 
to  him,  and  with  whom  the  interests  of  his  kingdom 
were  identified. 

3.  Another  fact  particularly  deserving  of  notice,  is 
the  perfectly  free  and  unrestricted  manner  in  wliich 
the  terms,  "little  ones,"  "such  children,"  etc.,  areera- 
ployed  to  designate  disciples.  We  hear  the  Saviour, 
even  after  calling  attention  to  little  children,  and  de- 
claring that  tlie  members  of  his  kingdom  must  possess 
similar  traits  of  character,  familiarly  using  these  terms 
as  appellations  of  his  disciples,  without  the  slightest 
intimation  that  his  language  was  susceptible  of  being 
understood  in  any  other  sense.  He  introduces  no  re- 
mark apparently  designed  to  guard  against  misappre- 
hension. He  seems  to  have  taken  it  for  granted  that 
when  he  spake  of  '"little  ones"  as  connected  with  his 
kingdom,  he  should  at  once  be  understood  as  referring 
to  the  subjects  of  his  gospel.  So  entirely  foreign  was 
it  to  all  ideas  suggested  by  his  instructions  to  consider 
little  ones  in  age  as  members  of  his  kingdom.* 

*  For  an  examination  of  the  phrase,  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  see 
Note  F.    Appendix. 


84  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


SECTION  IV. 

THE  DIRECT   TEACHING  OF    CHRIST  AND    HIS  APOSTLES  RESPECTING    THE  QUAL- 
IFICATIONS  NECESSARY   FOR   BAPTISM    AND   CHURCH    MEMBERSHIP. 

That  believers  are  the  only  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism, is  further  evident  from  the  direct  teaching  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles  respecting  the  qualifications  re- 
quisite for  baptism  and  visible  church  membership.  It  is 
obvious  he  designed  that  none  should  be  admitted  as 
members  of  the  church  except  on  a  credible  profession 
of  true  discipleship.  This  appears  from  the  model  of 
a  church  given  us  in  the  New  Testament..  The  first 
churches  are  uniformly  described  both  in  the  Acts  and 
in  tlie  Epistles,  as  consisting  of  believers,  saints,  the 
regenerated,  the  sanctified,  the  faithful  in  Ciirist. 
This  accords  with  what  Christ  had  enjoined  in  his  final 
commission.  "Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  or  make  dis- 
ciples of  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Mat.  28:  19.  "He  that  6«=//ew//?.  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved."  Mark  16 :  16.  This  language  clearly 
implies  that  faith  or  discipleship  is  necessary  to  the 
proper  observance  of  baptism.  The  subjects  of  the 
ordinance  are  designated  as  those  who  believe  or  are 
converted.  That  this  was  the  light  in  which  the  com- 
mission was  regarded  by  those  who  received  it  directly 
from  the  lips  of  their  Master,  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  we  nniformly  find  them  inculcating  the  same  doc- 
trine. "  Repent  and  be  baptized."  Acts  2:  30. 
"Who  can  forbid  water  that  these  should  be  baptized, 
who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  7" 
Acts  10:  49.  And  even  in  case  of  direct  application 
for  baptism,  the  reply  is,  "  If  thou  helievest  with  all 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  85 

thy  heart,  tlioii  mayest."  Acts  8  :  37.  Faith  in  Christ 
is  thus  presented  as  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to 
baptism.  We  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  by  exam- 
ining" the  several  passages  relating  to  baptism  in  the 
Epistles.  They  plainly  teach  that  none  were  regard- 
ed as  proper  subjects  for  the  ordinance,  but  such  as 
were  prepared  to  '-put  on  Christ,"  and  to  "walk  in 
newness  of  life."  See  Rom.  6  :  2-11 ;  Gal.  3:  28-30; 
Col.  2  :  12.  There  is  nothing  in  the  teaching  either 
of  Christ,  or  of  his  apostles,  affording  the  slightest  au- 
thority for  the  administration  of  baptism  to  any  but 
such  as  give  evidence  of  genuine  discipleship. 


SECTION  V. 

PEDOBAPTISM    DIRECTLY   REFUTED   BY   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT 

Notwithstanding  the  facts  presented  in  the  preced- 
ing sections,  it  is  frequently  urged,  that,  if  infants  are 
not  mentioned  in  tlie  New  Testament  as  proper  sub- 
jects for  baptism  and  church  membership,  tbey  are  not 
expressly  excluded ;  if  tbeir  baptism  is  not  enjoined,  it 
is  also  not  forbidden.  To  this  it  migbt  be  a  sufficient 
reply,  that  the  same  is  true  of  unconverted  adults,  and 
of  all  infants,  as  well  as  tbose  of  believing  parents. 
To  administer  baptism  on  this  ground,  moreover, 
would  be  to  disregard  theauthority  of  Christ,  and  trifle 
with  his  institutions.  In  instituting  the  ordinance  he 
has  specified  and  described  the  subjects,  and  those 
who  would  meet  his  approbation  must  adhere  to  his 
instructions.  To  act  without  authority  is  in  positive 
institutions  equivalent  to  acting  in  opposition  to  au- 
thority. It  is  deviating  from  the  requisitions  of  the 
Master. 

8 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


But,  independently  of  these  suggestions,  we  believe 
it  can  be  made  perfectly  obvious  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  in  the  administration  of  baptism,  and  the 
admission  of  members  to  the  cluuch,  infants  are  ex- 
pressly excluded.  The  only  right  to  baptism  and 
church  membership  that  is,  or  can  be,  claimed  in  their 
behalf,  is  that  founded  on  relations  or  privileges  ac- 
quired, or  supposed  to  have  been  acquired,  by  natural 
birth.  Under  the  former  dispensation  these  relations 
were  regarded.  It  was  simply  necessary  that  an  indi- 
vidual should  be  born  of  HelDrew  parents  to  entitle  him 
to  a  participation  in  all  the  rites  and  privileges  peculiar 
to  the  Jewish  theocracy.  But  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
all  relations  resulting  from  natural  birth  are  declared 
to  be  of  no  avail.  No  one  is  entitled  to  the  peculiar 
privileges  of  the  gospel  in  consequence  of  what  he 
possesses  by  nature,  or  independently  of  personal  re- 
generation. In  this  respect  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
dispensations  are  represented  as  being  essentially  dif- 
ferent. 

This  doctrine  is  first  distinctly  brought  to  view  in  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist.  While  he  announced 
the  approach  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  he  ex- 
horted the  people  to  repent,  and  to  bring  forth  fruits 
meet  for  repentance,  as  the  only  condition  on  which 
they  could  claim  membership  in  this  kingdom,  or  en- 
joy its  peculiar  blessings.  Mat.  3  :  2,  S,  10,  12.  "And 
think  not  to  say  within  yourselves.  We  have  Abra- 
ham to  our  father ;  for  I  say  unto  you  that  God  is  able 
of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham," 
ver.  9.  They  were  thus  distinctly  taught  that  their 
relation  to  Abraham  as  his  natural  descendants,  how- 
ever much  it  might  have  benefited  them  under  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  would  be  of  no  avail  in  the  king- 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  87 

dom  of  Christ.  It  is  also  intimated  that  a  different 
relationship,  and  one  in  no  respect  the  result  of  natural 
generation,  would  henceforth  be  recognized.  It  will 
be  observed  the  Baptist  is  here  speaking,  not  of  Jews 
in  distinction  from  Gentiles,  nor  of  adults  in  distinction 
from  infants,  but  of  those  who  are  related  to  Abraham 
by  natural  descent,  in  distinction  from  those  who  are 
his  "  children"  on  other  grounds,  (ver.  9,)  and  who 
become  connected  with  the  kingdom  of  God  by  repen- 
tance of  sin,  and  a  change  of  character.     Comp.  verses 

2,  8,  9,  10.  The  Jews  were  considered  the  seed  of 
Abraham  without  respect  to  age.  They  were  such  from 
their  very  birth.  This  relation,  which  was  thus  in  the 
mind  of  the  Jew  associated  with  the  period  of  infancy 
no  less  than  of  manhood,  is  here  directly  contrasted 
with  the  requisite  qualifications  for  baptism  and  mem- 
bership in  the  kingdom  of  Christ;  and  as  this  is  all 
that  is  claimed  in  behalf  of  the  infant  offspring  of 
christian  parents,  the  ground  oy  wiiich  their  right  to 
baptism  is  predicated,  is  thus  set  aside  in  the  first  an- 
nunciation of  the  gospel  dispensation. 

The  same  doctrine  is  presented  with  still  greater 
clearness,  if  possible,  in  the  instructions  of  Christ 
himself.     In  his  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  John 

3,  he  declares,  "  Except  a  man  be  horn  again  he  can- 
not see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or  experience  that  in 
which  it  consists,  and  by  which  it  is  distinguished,  i.  e. 
participate  in  its  peculiar  privileges.  Compare  John 
3  :  36  ;  8 :  51 ;  Acts  2  :  27,  31,  etc.  The  phrase  "  the 
kingdom  of  God"  is  evidently  used,  as  in  Mark  1 :  15; 
4 :  30  ;  Luke  16  :  16  ;  17  :  20 ;  Mat.  21 :  31,  32,  and  in 
most  of  the  passages  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Evan- 
gelists, to  denote  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  intro- 
duced with  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  including  the 


OO  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

blessedness  of  heaven.  The  sentiment  of  ver.  3  is 
repeated  and  more  fully  explained  in  verses  5  and  6. 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit," 
i.  e.,  experience  the  washing  of  a  regeneration  by  the 
Spirit,  (comp.  Tit.  3:  5,)  "he  cannotenterintothe  king- 
dom of  God.*  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh, 
and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  Naliual 
generation  is  here  directly  contrasted  with  regenera- 
tion, and  is  declared  to  be  insufBcienl  to  membership 
in  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah.  This  is  the  privelcge 
of  none  but  such  as  are  born  again.  Those  who  are 
merely  "born  of  the  flesh"  are  expressly  excluded. 

Now  had  Christ  commanded  his  disciples  to  baptize 
infants,  and  recognize  them  as  members  of  his  king- 
dom, as  is  generally  assumed  by  Pedobaptists,  the  in- 
quiry would  naturally  have  arisen  in  their  minds. 
What  is  the  ground  of  their  right  to  these  privileges  1 
And  had  he  replied,  that  although  not  regenerated, 
they  were  to  be  admitted  on  the  ground  of  relations 
acquired  by  natural  birth,  we  can  easily  imagine  the 
surprise  with  which  they  would  have  exclaimed,  But 
how  is  this  possible  ?  Has  it  not  been  declared  that 
in  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  natural  birth  is  of  no 
avail  ; — that  no  one  can  become  connected  with  it  ex- 
cept he  be  born  again?  To  reconcile  these  opposite 
positions  is,  we  believe,  impossible. 

The  declarations  of  Christ  upon  this  point  would  nat- 
urally be  borne  in  mind  by  his  disciples  when  they 
received  their  final  commission ;  and  even  liad  he 
omitted  to  designate  the  subjects  of  baptism  as  disci- 
ples or  believers,  they  could  not  have  understood  him 
otherwise  than  as  enjoining  the  baptism,  not  of  those 
who  should  be  born  into  the  world,  whetlier  of  believ- 

*  Note  G.    Appendix. 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  89 

ing  or  unbelieving  parents,  but  of  those  only  who 
should  give  evidence  that  they  were  "  born  again." 
He  had  taught  them  that  the  terms  of  admission  into 
his  kingdom  were  peculiar;  that  those  only  could 
become  its  members,  who,  in  addition  to  being  "  born 
of  the  flesh,"  should  be  "  born  of  the  Spirit;"  and  it 
would  be  folly  for  them  to  apply  the  rite  of  recogni- 
tion to  such  as  were  not  entitled  to  membership. 

That  this  was  the  light  in  which  the  apostles  viewed 
the  instructions  of  their  Lord,  is  abundantly  evident 
from  various  passages  in  their  writings  in  which  the 
same  doctrine  is  inculcated. 

We  first  notice  the  testimony  of  the  apostle  John. 
John  1:  11-13.  "He  came  unto  his  own  and  his 
own  received  him  not.  But  as  many  as  received  him, 
to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even 
to  them  that  believe  on  his  name;  who  were  born  not 
of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of 
man,  but  of  God.^^  The  Jews  were  considered  "  the 
children  of  the  Lord"  by  virtue  of  their  descent  from 
Abraham,  or  their  connexion  with  the  nation  whom 
he  had  chosen  to  be  "  his  peculiar  people  above  all 
the  nations  on  ihe  earth."  Deut.  14:  1,  2,  See  also 
Ex.  4:  22 ;  Jer.  31:9;  Isa.  63  :  16,  17 ;  Ps.  33  :  12. 
It  was  on  the  ground  of  this  relationship  that  they, 
whether  infants  or  adults,  were  entitled  to  the  rites  and 
privileges  of  the  Jewish  economy.  It  was  for  this 
reason  that  Christ  regarded  them  as  "bis  own,"  even 
when  they  possessed  the  disposition  which  led  them 
to  reject  him.  Upon  the  introduction  of  the  gospel, 
however,  none  were  acknowledged  the  children  of 
God, but  such  as  believed  in  Christ,  and  were  born  from 
above.     A  mere  6/ooc?  relationship  was  not  recognized. 


90  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  the  natural  descendants  of 
christians  are  not,  as  were  the  children  of  Jewish  pa- 
rents, included  among  the  children  or  people  of  God. 
The  only  ground  on  which  their  right  to  baptism  and 
church  membership  can  consistently  be  predicated, 
does  not  accordingly  exist ;  and  the  argument  urged 
in  its  defence  is  reduced  to  this, — The  Jewish  infant, 
inasmuch  as  he  was  reckoned  among  the  children  or 
people  of  God,  was  entitled  to  circumcision,  there- 
fore the  infant  oflspring  of  christians  are  entitled  to 
baptism,  although  they  sustain  no  such  relationship^ 
although,  in  fact,  the  only  claim  that  can  be  preferred 
in  their  behalf,  or  blood  relationship,  has  been  entirely 
discarded. 

This  doctrine  is  presented    and  applied   with  still 
greater  explicitness  in  the  epistles  of  Paul.     This  will 
be  evident  from  an  examination  of  those  passages  in 
which  he  speaks  of  circumcision.     He   teaches  that 
under  the  gospel  the  circumcised  and  the  uncircnmci- 
sed  stand   precisely  on   the  same    ground.     Rom.  2: 
26-28.     "In  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth 
any  thing  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creatine, — but 
faith  that  works  by  love."     Gal.  5  :  6 ;  6 :  15.     He 
admits  that   circumcision   as  practiced  by    the   Jews 
was  not  without  its  benefits.     Rom.  3  :  1,  2.     It  was 
an  "  advantage"  to  them  in  a  variety  of  respects ;  and 
that  too,   although  many  of  them  were  destitute  of 
saving  faith.     Rom.  3:3;  and  chap.  2 :  28,  29,  com- 
pared  with  chap.  3  :  1,  2.     It  secured  the  enjoyment 
of  blessings  by  which  they  were  distinguislicd  from 
other  nations,  particularly  (hose  resulting  from   their 
being  favored  with  the  oracles  of  God.     Rom.  3 :  2. 
It  thus  appears  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  circumci- 
sion in  a  sense  in  which  it  was  really  available  to  the 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  91 

Jewish  nation.     He  refers  not  to  its  form  or  its  mere 
external    observance,  but  to  its  object,  its  advantages, 
the    grounds  on  which  it  was  practiced.     He  shows 
that  it  is  of  no  avail  under  the  gospel,  not  simply  as  an 
external  transaction,  but  as  a  badge  of  distinction,  as  an 
indication  of  relationship  to  Abraham,   as   an   actual 
privilege  pertaining  to  the  Jewish   dispensation.     His 
argument  utterly  forbids  the  supposition  that  the  origi- 
nal institution  is  still  in  force,  the  external  rite  simply 
having  been  exchanged  for  another  of  similar  import. 
Circumcision  is  unavailing,  inasmuch  as  the  only  thing 
that  is  of  any  avail  is  faith,  or  a  new  creation,  and  the 
only  circumcision  that  is  recognized  is  spiritual.     Rom. 
2 :  28,  29.     Did  the  apostle  allude  merely  to  the  out- 
ward ceremony,  his  reasoning  would  be  singularly  in- 
conclusive.    The  possession  of  faith  would  be  no  rea- 
son for  disregarding  one  external  rite  more  than   any 
other  that  might  be  introduced  in  its  stead.     It  is  made 
to  appear  that  circumcision  is  of  no  avail  on  the  ground 
that  faith  is  possessed,  only  as  its  observance  is  predi- 
cated on  certain  relations  and   privileges  with  which 
faith  is  properly  contrasted,  and  which  are  no  longer 
regarded.     The  ground  on   which  infant  baptism  is 
practiced  is  accordingly  excluded  from  the  Christian 
system.     A  natural  relationship  to  Abraham,  or  to  the 
people  of  God,  which  was  indicated  by  circumcision, 
and  which  is  all  that  can  be  claimed  in  behalf  of  in- 
fants, is  declared  to  be  of  no  avail  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ.     The  only  relation  that  is  available  is  that  ac- 
quired by  faith,  or  a  new  creation.     The  ancient  law 
of  circumcision,  so  far  from  being  continued  in  the 
Christian  church  with  simply  a  change  in  the  external 
rite,  has  been  entirely  done  away;  so  that  the  only 
circumcision  now  recognized  is  "  that  of  the  heart  in 


92 


CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 


the  spirit,"  and  "made  without  hands."     Rom.  2:  28, 
29;  Col.  2:  11;  Eph.  2:  11. 


SECTION  VI. 

THE  ARGUMENT  SHOWING  THAT  PEDOBAPTISM  IS    DIKECTLY    REFUTED  BY  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT,   CONTINUED. AN  EXAMINATION    OF  ROM.  XI  :    11-32. 

To  the  Biblical  student  it  is  an  interesting  fact,  strik- 
ingly exemplifying  the  credibility  of  the  sacred  wri- 
tings, that  passages  adduced  in  the  defence  of  error, 
are  usually  found,  upon  examination,  not  only  to  have 
been  misinterpreted,  but  to  contain  some  proof,  more 
or  less  direct,  of  the  opposite  truth.  Rom.  11:  11-32 
may  be  presented  as  an  example.  No  passage  is  ap- 
pealed to  with  more  confidence  in  defence  of  the  bap- 
tism and  church  membership  of  infants:  and  yet  a 
careful  examination  of  its  import  will  render  obvious, 
we  trust,  not  only  that  it  is  entirely  irrelevant  for  such 
a  purpose,  but  that  it  meets  the  whole  system  of  pedo- 
baptism  with  a  direct  and  decisive  refutation. 

Expositors  have  usually  taken  for  granted  that  "  the 
fall"  of  the  Jews  (vs.  11,  12,  15,)  contributed 'to  the 
benefit  of  the  Gentiles,  only  as  it  became  the  occasion 
of  the  prevalence  of  the  gospel  among  them.  We 
are  constrained,  however,  to  regard  this  as  an  unwar- 
rantable assumption.  First,  the  apostle  is  not  speak- 
ing of  the  spread  or  prevalence  of  the  gospel  among 
the  Gentiles,  but  the  extension  of  its  privileges  to  them. 
"  Through  their  fall,  salvation  has  come,"  or  is  ex- 
tended, "to  the  Gentiles,"  ver.  11.  Secondly,  the 
promulgation  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles  did  not 
depend  on  the  exclusion  of  the  Jews  from  its  privileges. 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  93 

It  was  in  accordance  with  God's  original  plan  that 
"  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached 
in  the  name  of  Christ  among  all  nations."  And  had 
the  Jews  without  exception  embraced  the  gospel,  the 
Gentiles  would  no  less  certainly  have  been  made  par- 
takers of  its  blessings.  Thirdly,  the  apostle  is  appa- 
rently speaking  of  the  fall  of  the  Jews  in  a  sense  which 
implies  that  it  was  not  the  indirect  occasion,  but  the 
necessary  condition,  of  the  extension  of  the  gospel  to 
the  Gentiles  ;  an  event  without  which  the  Gentiles,  as 
such,  could  not  have  been  introduced  into  the  kingdom 
of  Christ.  Both  the  language  employed,  and,  as  will 
appear  upon  investigation,  the  nature  of  the  argument, 
lead  to  this  conclusion.     Comp.  vs.  12,  15,  17,  20. 

It  has  also  been  generally  assumed  that  the  relation 
indicated  in  the  passage,  particularly  in  vs.  16-25,  is 
that  of  visible  church  membership.  This  supposition, 
however,  cannot  easily  be  reconciled  with  the  fact  that 
the  relation  is  one,  which,  under  the  gospel,  implies 
the  salvation  of  the  soul,  and  is  inseparably  connected 
with  personal  faith  in  Christ,  vs.  11,  14,20,23,  26,  30. 

Both  of  these  errors  have  originated  in  a  misappre- 
hension of  the  design  and  nature  of  the  apostle's  argu- 
ment. Instead  of  proceeding,  as  is  usually  represent- 
ed, on  the  principle  that  the  Christian  church  is  virtu- 
ally the  same  with  the  Jewish  theocracy,  he  takes  a 
position  not  only  dissimilar,  but  directly  the  reverse. 
He  proceeds  on  the  ground  that  the  gospel  economy  is 
essentially  different  in  its  nature,  its  principles,  and 
its  requisitions,  from  that  which  had  previously  existed  ; 
that  while  the  general  relation  or  privilege  involved  in 
being  the  peculiar  people  of  God  was  continued^  the  con- 
ditions of  enjoying  this  privilege  had  become  changed ; 
that  the  Jews,  except  as  far  as  they  had,  by  believing 


94 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


in  Christ,  complied  with  the  requisitions  of  the  new 
dispensation,  had  been  "  broken  ofl'"  from  this  rela- 
tionship, and  that  the  Gentiles,  upon  the  exercise  of 
faith,  had  been  broiiaht  in,  and  were  now,  together 
with  the  believing  Jews,  regarded  as  the  only  true 
people  of  God.  Under  the  former  dispensation,  the 
Jews  were  considered  the  people  of  God  by  virtue  of 
their  descent  from  Abraham;  but  under  the  gospel, 
this  relation  is  sustained  by  none,  whether  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  but  such  as  become  the  subjects  of  saving 
faith. 

This  fundamental  principle  in  the  apostle's  reason- 
ing is  distinctly  and  prominently  brought  to  view  in 
the  preceding  chapters.  In  chap.  9  :  1-8,  he  calls  at- 
tention to  "  his  brethren,  his  kinsmen  according  to  the 
flesh."  They  are  introduced  as  those  who  had  sus- 
tained to  God  a  peculiar  and  endearing  relation,  by 
virtue  of  which  they  had  been  blessed  with  special 
religious  privileges.  They  were  "  Israelites,  to  whom 
pertained  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  cove- 
nants, and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of 
God,  and  the  promises  ;  whose  were  the  fathers,  and 
of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is 
over  all  God  blessed  for  ever."  Those  advantages, 
however,  the  apostle  teaches,  are  of  no  avail  under 
the  gospel  dispensation.  In  the  Christian  church  a 
different  relation  is  established.  The  general  idea  ex- 
pressed by  theterms  "Israel, "and  "the  people  of  God," 
is  indeed  continued  ;  but  not  with  tlie  same  applica- 
tion. Christians,  it  is  true,  sustain  a  connection  with 
Abraham  ;  but  it  is  not  a  natural  connection.  None 
are  considered  "the  children  of  God,"  or  "  the  seed 
of  Abraham,"  because  they  are  "  the  children  of  the 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  95 

flesh."     None  are  acknowledged  as  such,  but  g-enu- 
ine  disciples  of  Christ,  vs.  6-8. 

In  one  sense,  the  apostle  intimates,  the  Jews  w^ere 
the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  the  Israel  of  God.  So  they 
had  ever  been  regarded,  and  sotliey  are  here  designa- 
ted, vs.  4,  7.  But  in  t!ie  gospel  this  relation  is  not  re- 
cognized. In  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  those  only  are 
"  counted  for  the  seed,"  who  have  personally  embrac- 
ed the  truth.  In  these,  the  word  of  God  respecting 
the  seed  of  Abraham  has  been  fulfilled  ;  compare  vs. 
6  and  7.  To  these  the  promise  of  grace  relates,  and 
by  them  it  has  been  realized,  ver.  8.  And  they  have 
become  the  people  of  God  on  entirely  different  princi- 
ples from  those  which  operated  under  the  former  dis- 
pensation. They  enjoy  this  relation,  not  from  any 
advantages  of  birtji,  but  solely  in  consequence  of  a 
separate  and  special  act  of  divine  grace.  God  exer- 
cises discrimination  in  reference  to  the  members  of  his 
kingdom,  vs.  9  23.  His  people  consist,  notof  those  who 
are  merely  connected  with  Abraham  by  lineal  descent, 
but  of  those  whom  he  has  personally  called  out  from  the 
rest  of  mankind,  "  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of 
the  Gentiles,"  ver.  24;  of  those  who  have  become 
the  subjects  of  personal  faith,  and  are  consequently 
justified  before  God,  vs.  30,  32,  33.  Personal  piety,  or 
faith,  is  the  only  and  all  sufficient  condition  of  enjoy- 
ing the  blessings  of  the  gospel.  "  Whosoever  belie v- 
eth  on  him  shall  not  be  ashamed  ;  for  there  is  no 
difference  between  the  Jew  and  the  Greek,"  chap.  10: 
11,  12.  National  distinctions,  lineal  descent,  advan- 
tages of  birth  or  natural  relationship,  all  are  entirely 
unknown,  chap.  10  :  4-13.  And  this  is  confirmed  by 
the  testimony  of  the  ancient  prophets,  vs.  19-21. 

In  chap.  11,  the  apostle  proceeds  to  show  that, 


96  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

although,  as  had  been  sliown,  the  Jewish  nation  were 
no  longer  regarded  as  the  people  of  God,  it  did  not 
follow  that  they  had  been  unconditionally  cast  off  as 
reprobates.  TJiey  might  still,  equally  with  all  other 
nations,  upon  the  exercise  of  faith,  secure  the  bles- 
sings of  the  gospel,  and  become  the  people  of  God  in 
a  new  and  more  important  sense,  ver.  1,  seq.  This 
was  evident  from  the  fact  that  a  portion  of  the  nation 
had  actually  been  converted,  and  brought  into  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.  A  remnant  according  to  the  elec- 
tion of  grace  had  been  saved,  vs.  1-5.  The  grace  of 
God  had  been  displayed  in  the  salvation  of  individuals, 
althougli  "  Israel,"  or  the  nation  in  general,  had  not 
obtained  that  to  which  they  professed  to  be  aspiring, 
ver.  7.  They  had  become  blinded.  Christ  had  be- 
come to  them  "  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of 
oflfence,"  vs.  7,  10,  comp.  chap.  9  :  32,  33.  There 
was  in  the  gospel  so  much  that  was  new  and  peculiar, 
its  terms  of  relationship  to  God  were  so  entirely  differ- 
ent from  those  of  the  former  dispensation,  that  they 
were  offended,  and  had  "  rejected  the  counsel  of  God 
against  themselves,"  chap.  9  :  32,  comp.  John  8 :  39  ; 
Matt.  3:9;  Luke  7  :  30. 

It  was  not,  however, — as  is  intimated  in  ver.  1, — to 
be  inferred  that  they  had  stumbled  so  as  to  fall  abso- 
lutely, to  be  beyond  the  hope  of  salvation,  ver.  11. 
The  blessings  of  the  gospel  were  still  within  their 
reach  ;  and  the  very  change  in  the  divine  economy,  by 
which  tliey  were  deprived  of  tlieir  national  distinction, 
tended  in  its  consequences  to  incite  them  to  avail  them- 
selves of  those  l)lessings.  "  Through  their  fall  salva- 
tion has  come  to  the  Gentiles  to  provoke  them  to  emu- 
lation," ver.  11.  Their  conversion,  moreover,  would 
be  an  advantage  to  the  Gentile  world.     The  introduc- 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  97 

tion  of  the  gospel  among  the  nations,  instead  of  being 
thereby  prevented,  would  be  essentially  promoted. 
*  For  if  their  fall  from  the  high  relation  which  they  had 
sustained  to  God  as  his  peculiar  people,  in  distinction 
from  all  other  nations, — if  the  annihilation  of  this  dis- 
tinction, had  opened  tlie  way  for  the  Gentiles  to  be 
receiv^ed  into  the  favor  of  God,  how  mnch  more  rapidly 
and  widely  would  the  gospel  be  extended  in  the  world, 
were  they  themselves  to  admit  its  claims,  and  comply 
with  itsrequisitions,'vcr.  12.  Asitwould  beobvious  that 
nothing  but  a  firm  conviction  of  its  truth  and  intrinsic 
importance  could  induce  them  to  abandon  opinions  in 
which  they  had  been  educated,  and  which  they  had 
long  fondly  cherished,  to  renounce  all  dependence  on 
privileges  and  relations  which  had  been  the  pride  of 
their  ancestors,  and  by  which  they  had  ever  been  dis- 
tinguished from  the  rest  of  mankind,  the  impulse  given 
to  the  truth  would  be  irresistible. 

The  apostle  is  here  speaking,  not  of  some  predicted 
future  event,  but  of  the  natural  result  of  the  state  of 
things  indicated.  And  he  intimates  that  as  far  as  the 
latter  should  at  any  time  be  realized,  so  far  the  former 
might  be  anticipated.  He  accordingly  remarks  that 
one  object  which  he  proposed  to  himself  even  in  his 
capacity  as  "  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,"  was  the  con- 
version of  the  Jews, — ^'  if  by  any  means  he  might 
save  some  of  them,"  vs.  13,  14.  "For  if  the  rejec- 
tion of  them  be  the  reconciling  of  the  world,  what 
shall  the  reception  of  them  be,  but  life  from  the  dead," 
ver.  15. 

In  ver.  16  the  apostle  again  introduces,  and  applies 
to  his  argument,  the  fact  alluded  to  at  the  beginning 
of*  the  chapter.  "For  if  the  first  fruits  be  holy,  the 
mass  is  also  holy."     The  term  "  holy"  here  used,  it  is 

9 


98  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

universally  admitted,  is  not  descriptive  of  moral  holi- 
ness. Its  import  must  be  determined  by  reference  to 
the  Jewish  custom  to  which  allusion  is  had.  As,  in 
the  law,  the  consecration  and  acceptance  of  the  fiist 
fruits  was  proof  that  the  mass  was  accepted,  so  the 
conversion  of  a  portion  of  the  Jewish  nation  leads  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  remainder  may  be  accepted  on 
the  same  terms, — that  they  have  not  been  consigned 
to  hopeless  reprobation. 

Or  "  if  the  root  be  holy,  so  are  the  branches."  It 
will  be  observed  that  the  only  distinction  here  indicat- 
ed is  between  "  the  root"  and  "the  branches."  The 
root,  according  to  the  representation  of  vs.  17,  18,  19, 
is  not  only  the  source  of  nourishment  to  the  branches, 
but  that  in  which  they  inhere,  by  which  they  are  up- 
held, into  which  they  are  grafted.  The  figure  is  that 
of  a  root  shooting  forth  into  a  stem  or  stock  with 
which  the  branches  are  connected.  In  this  applica- 
tion of  the  word  pi^a  (riza),  the  apostle  was  justitied  by 
the  use  of  the  Hebrew  term,  with  which  in  the  Septu- 
agint  and  in  the  New  Testament  it  corresponds,  and 
which  not  unfrequently  includes  in  its  signification  the 
sprout  or  stem,  no  less  than  the  root  whence  it  springs. 
Isa.  53:  2;  Isa.  11:  10,  compared  with  Isa.  11:  1; 
Rom,  15:  12. 

The  figure  is  here  applied  to  that  on  which  the  Jews 
were  dependent  for  whatever  they  enjoyed  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  rest  of  mankind,  to  wit,  the  state  of  spe- 
cial favor  with  God  into  which  they  had  been  intro- 
duced,— the  relation  which  had  been  established  be- 
tween them  and  God,  by  which  they  were  constituted 
his  peculiar  people.  If  this  relation  were  holy, — if  it 
were  not  a  mere  pretext,  a  manifest  reflection  on  tl^e 
sincerity  and  holiness  of  God  (comp.  ver.  29) ;  in  other 
words,  if  God  had  actually  set  apart  the  Jewish  nation 


ITS    SUBJECTS. 


d9 


for  himself  and  made  them  the  objects  of  special  favor 
under  one  dispensation,  it  might  reasonably  be  ex- 
pected that  he  would  regard  them  with  interest  upon 
the  introduction  of  a  new  dispensation,— that  they 
would  not,  certainly,  be  considered  reprobates,  or  be 
absolutely  and  unconditionally  cast  away ;  that  they 
would  be  accepted  on  equal  terms,  to  say  the  least,  with 
those  who  had  always  and  in  every  sense  been  in  a 
state  of  alienation. 

And  even  though  some  of  the  branches,  or  a  por- 
tion of  the  nation  who  had  all  along  been  regarded  as 
the  people  of  God,  had,  in  consequence  of  not  com- 
plying with  the  terms  of  the  new  dispensation,  been 
"  broken  off"  from  that  relationship,  and  the  privilege 
of  becoming  his  people  conferred  on  the  Gentiles,  ver. 
17;  still  it  had  been  done  on  such  a  principle  that  it 
gave  the  Gentiles  no  real  advantage  over  the  Jews. 
The  former  had  no  ground  for  boasting,  as  if  they  had 
been  made  the  objects  of  special  or  exclusive  favor, 
ver.  18.  Not  only  had  they,  by  being  constituted  the 
people  of  God,  been  brought  into  a  relation  which  the 
Jews  in  one  sense  had  long  held,  and  into  the  enjoy- 
ment of  blessings,  with  the  knowledge  and  anticipa- 
tion of  which  the  Jews  had  long  been  favored ;  but  the 
conditions  on  which  they  held  thisrelation,  and  enjoyed 
these  blessings,  were  of  universal  application,  vs.  18- 
22.  True,  the  Jews  had  been  "  broken  off,"  or  were 
no  longer  regarded  in  distinction  from  all  other  nations 
as  the  people  of  God,  in  order  that  this  privilege  might 
be  extended  on  other  conditions  to  the  Gentiles,  vs.  19, 
20 :  yet  it  was  no  less  true  that  the  same  faith  by  which 
the  Gentile  held  this  relation,  was  equally  available  in 
the  case  of  the  Jew,  vs.  20,  23,  24. 

Had  the  Jews,  upon  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel 


100  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

to  them  by  Christ  and  his  disciples,  embraced  it,  and 
become  its  subjects,  they  might  have  continued  to 
be  regarded  as  the  people  of  God ;  not  on  the  same 
principles  as  had  been  previously  recognized,  not 
because  they  were  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  but 
on  the  ground  of  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  union  with 
him.  But  as  they  declined  retaining  the  relation  on 
this  condition,  it  became  necessary,  in  order  that  the 
Gentiles  might  be  admitted  to  equal  privileges,  that 
they  should  be  broken  off  from  it  entirely.  Their  un- 
belief was  consequently  the  real  cause  of  their  fall  or 
alienation. 

The  argument  of  the  apostle  has  thus  far  proceeded 
on  the  principle  that  the  Jews  in  all  ages  may,  upon 
complying  with  the  requisitions  of  the  gospel,  avail 
themselves  of  its  blessings  ;  that  there  is  nothing  which 
excludes  them  from  its  benefits,  that  is  not  of  universal 
application.  He  now  (ver.  25,  seq.)  adduces,  in  sup- 
port of  his  position  stated  in  vs.  1,  11,  an  additional 
consideration.  It  is  the  purpose  of  God  eventually  to 
convert  the  nation  as  a  whole.  This  had  been  foretold 
by  the  prophets,  vs.  26,  27.  It  might  also  be  inferred 
from  the  promises  of  God  to  the  patriarchs,  vs.  27,  28. 
For  although  "  as  concerning  the  gospel,"  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  were  regarded  as  "  enemies,"  "  for  the 
sake  of  the  Gentiles,"  although  as  far  as  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Christian  dispensation  were  concerned, 
they  were  viewed  in  the  same  light  as  all  other  unbe- 
lievers,—all  distinction  arising  from  natural  descent 
having  been  done  away, — that  thus  the  blessings  of  the 
gospel  might  be  extended  to  all  nations;  it  was  never- 
theless true  that  God  had  a  regard  for  the  nation  in 
view  of  his  promises  to  their  ancestors,  and  that  these 
promises  insured  their  ultimate  general  acceptance  of 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  101 

the  terms  of  the  new  covenant.  This,  however,  did 
not,  could  not,  affect  their  relation  to  the  kingdom  of 
Christ.  The  gospel  regarded  them  as  enemies,  ex- 
cluded from  the  favor  of  God,  and  destined  to  remain 
so,  until  they  should  accept  of  mercy  on  terms  which 
admit  of  no  distinction  of  nation  or  natural  character. 

Verses  30-32  are  chiefly  a  repetition,  m  another 
form,  of  the  sentiment  illustrated  in  the  preceding  con- 
text, viz.,  the  gospel,  as  it  finds  Jews  and  Gentiles  in 
the  same  state  of  alienation  from  God,  admits  them  td 
a  participation  in  its  blessings  on  the  same  conditions. 

The  words  translated  "  through  their  unbelief," 
(ver.  30,)  "  signify,"  says  Dr.  Bloomfield,  "  as  the  best 
commentators,  ancient  and  modern,  are  agreed,  '  of,' 
^  on  occasion  o/",' their  disobedience."  The  same  re- 
mark is  applicable  to  the  phrase  rendered  "  through 
your  mercy,"  in  the  next  verse,  which  should  be  con- 
nected in  sense,  as  in  the  original  scriptures  it  is  in 
construction,  with  the  former  clause, — "Even  so  have 
these  also  now  become  unbelievers  on  the  occasion  of 
your  experiencing  mercyy  Anuecia  (unbelief)  must  not 
be  confounded  in  sense  with  a7r.<rria  (unbelief)  in  vs. 
20,  23.  It  includes  the  idea  of  disobedience,  as  also 
of  opposition  and  alienation.  It  is  here  indicative 
rather  of  state  or  condition,  than  of  action.  Its  sense 
is  determined  by  its  corresponding  verb  in  the  preced- 
ing clause:  "  As  ye  in  times  past  have  not  believed 
God."  The  obvious  import  of  this  expression  may  be 
illustrated  by  such  passages  as  Col.  1 :  21 ;  Eph.  2 : 
12,  13,  17;  4:  IS,  19;  Rom.  1:  21-32;  Acts  17: 
21;  etc.  It  indicates  not  so  much  the  rejection  of  a 
specified  revelation,  as  a  slate  of  estrangement  and 
general  depravity.  The  phrase  "on  occasion  of  their 
disobedience"  (ver.  30),  as  it  denotes  that  the  Jews 

9* 


102  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

had  ceased  to  be  obedient,  implies  that  formerly, 
i.  e.,  while  the  Gentiles  were  disobedient,  they  had 
enjoyed  a  slate  of  reconciliation  with  God.  The  case 
of  the  Gentiles  is  thus  shown  to  be  strikingly  parallel 
with  that  of  the  Jews  as  stated  in  ver.  31.  The  phrase 
is  introduced,  we  suppos^e,  partly  to  indicate  this  fact, 
and  partly  in  anticipation  of  the  statement  that  fol- 
lows. The  sense  of  the  whole  (vs.  30,  31)  may  be 
thus  expressed:  "As  the  Gentiles  have  formerly  been 
without  God  in  tbc  world,  but  have  now,  on  occasion  of 
the  Jews  becoming  unbelieving  and  alienated,  experi- 
enced the  mercy  of  God  ;  in  like  manner  the  Jews 
have,  by  their  contumacy  and  disobedience  on  the  ex- 
tension of  mercy  to  the  Gentiles,  been  brought  into  a 
state  where,  equally  wilii  the  Gentiles,  they  are  proper 
subjects  for  the  exercise  of  mercy." 

"  For  God,"  adds  the  apostle  (ver.  32),  "  has  con- 
cluded them  all  in  unbelief  (alienation),  that  he  might 
have  mercy  on  all."  In  accordance  with  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Mosaic  economy,  the  nation  in  general,  as 
they  were  not  idolaters,  were  reckoned  as  believers  in 
the  God  of  Israel.  They  were  his  worshippers,  his 
servants,  his  witnesses,  his  chosen  people.  But  upon 
the  introduction  of  the  gospel,  which  is  essentially  dif- 
ferent in  its  nature  and  design, — whose  blessings  are 
primarily  not  national  and  temporal,  but  spiritual  and 
eternal,  those  who  refused  to  exercise  that  faith  which 
implies  a  saving  change  of  heart,  were,  equally  with 
the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  regarded  as  unbelievers  and 
aliens.  The  way  was  thus  fully  open  for  God  to  deal 
with  men  solely  in  view  of  their  individual  character 
and  deserts.  Had  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  been  ex- 
tended to  the  Jews  on  the  same  principles  on  which 
they  had  enjoyed  their  national  privileges,  they  would 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  103 

have  considered  themselves  entitled  to  them  by  virtue 
of  the  promises  made  to  Abraham,  and  their  relation 
to  him  as  his  natural  descendants.  But  as  they  were 
conferred  solely  on  the  ground  of  personal  regenera- 
tion and  faith  in  Cliiist,  it  was  evident  that  the  Jews 
had  no  more  claim  to  them  than  the  Gentiles;  that 
they  were  equally,  while  unconverted,  in  a  state  of 
enmity  and  condemnation,  and  that  if  they  ever  were 
regarded  with  favor,  the  mercy  of  God  to  them  as  indi- 
viduals must  be  equally  exercised.  Ver.  32,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  simple  and  natural  interpretation,  ex- 
presses merely  the  consequence  of  a  change  in  the 
conditions  on  which  the  Jews  could  be  regarded  as  the 
objects  of  divine  favor. 

In  the  foregoing  investigation  we  have  endeavored 
to  notice  and  present  in  its  proper  liglit  every  point 
essential  to  the  apostle's  argument.  The  passage,  on 
account  both  of  its  doctrinal  and  practical  bearings, 
is  well  worthy  of  the  space  which  has  been  devoted  to 
its  examination.  The  application  which  may  be 
made  of  it  in  refutation  of  the  principles  of  pedobap- 
tism  is  obvious. 

1.  It  is  fatal  to  the  position  that  the  Jewish  theocra- 
cy and  the  Christian  church  are  the  same  visible  or- 
ganization. It  must  be  evident,  upon  the  most  cursory 
examination,  that  it  contains  nothing  in  favor  of  such 
a  position.  It  makes  no  allusion  to  any  visible  organi- 
zation whatever.  Is  it  said  that  such  an  organization 
is  indicated  by  the  figure  of  the  good  olive  tree?  It 
may  suffice  to  ask,  in  reply.  What  organization  is 
meant  by  the  wild  olive  tree,  from  which  the  Gentiles 
as  branches  ^\e  cut  off?  If  the  latter,  as  is  universally 
admitted,  denotes  "  a  condition  which  is  one  of  enmity 
and  hostility  to  God"  (see  Barnes  on  Romans),  may 


104  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

not  the  former, — as  is  conceded  by  Dr.  Barnes  in  his 
remarks  on  ver.  24,  although  apparently  in  contradic- 
tion to  what  he  has  elsewhere  advanced, — indicate 
"  a  state  of  favor  with  God?"  In  fact,  does  not  the 
nature  of  the  contrast  exhibited  in  ver.  9A  require  such 
an  interpretation  ?  The  correctness  of  this  view  is 
equally  apparent  from  the  nature  of  the  apostle's  ar- 
gument. Its  several  parts  and  illustrations,  no  less 
than  its  general  tenor,  as  we  have  fully  shown,  require 
us  to  regard  the  figure  of  the  good  olive  tree  as  indi- 
cating a  state  of  reconciliation  and  favor  with  God,  or 
more  specifically,  the  relationship  involved  in  being  his 
peculiar  people.  From  this  relationship  the  Jews,  on 
tlie  introduction  of  the  gospel,  were  "  broken  off," 
and  into  it  the  Gentiles,  on  other  principles,  were  "  en- 
grafted," In  all  this  there  is  not  the  slighest  allusion 
to  any  visible  organization. 

But  the  passage  not  merely  contains  nothing  in  sup- 
port of  the  position  under  consideration ;  it  exhibits 
principles  and  facts  which  present  in  a  clear  and  inter- 
esting light  its  utter  fallacy.  The  design,  the  subjects, 
the  requisitions,  ihe  distinctive  blessings,  of  the  Jew- 
ish economy,  were  essentially  different  from  those  of 
the  Christian.  The  one  related  to  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  was  designed  to  keep  them  a  distinct  people  from 
the  rest  of  mankind.  The  other  relates  to  those  whose 
hearts  are  renewed  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  of  whatever 
nation,  and  has  special  reference  to  their  spiritual  and 
eternal  interests.  That  two  organizations,  adapted 
respectively  to  the  nature  and  design  of  these  different 
economics,  formed  on  principles  and  existing  under 
circumstances  so  entirely  dissimilar,  shoukl  be  the 
same,  is  impossible.  This  is  the  more  obvious  as  there 
is  nothing  in  their  external  history  to  suggest  the  idea 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  105 

that  they  are  to  be  identified.  The  disciples  of  Christ 
were  called  out  and  established  as  a  distinct  communi- 
ty, subject  to  their  own  peculiar  regulations,  having" 
the  right  of  discipline  over  their  own  members,  and 
pursuing  their  own  specific  ends,  all,  while  the  Jewish 
organization  continued  externally  in  existence,  and 
the  Jewish  Christians  generally  observed  its  institu- 
tions. The  Christian  church,  as  visibly  organized, 
can  in  no  sense  be  identified  with  the  Jewish  theocra- 
cy. Its  relations  and  ordinances  are  consequently  es- 
tablished on  independent  grounds. 

2.  The  passage  is  equally  fatal  to  the  position  that 
infants  are  proper  subjects  for  membeiship  in  the 
Christian  church,  and  consequently  entitled  to  its  ini- 
tiatory ordinance.  That  such  a  position  receives  no 
countenance  from  the  supposed  identity  of  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  organizations,  has  been  already  shown. 
In  addition  to  this,  the  passage  clearly  teaches  that  the 
only  ground  on  which  infant  baptism  is,  or  can  be 
defended,  does  not  exist.  It  establishes  the  principle, 
that  all  distinctions  or  privileges  involving  connection 
with  the  people  of  God,  supposed  to  be  acquired  by 
natural  birth,  or  independently  of  personal  faith  and 
repentance,  are  unknown  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
As  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  evidence  of  this  fact, 
it  having  been  so  fully  exhibited  in  the  preceding 
pages,  so  the  principle  need  only  be  stated  that  its  in- 
consistency with  the  theory  and  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism may  be  apparent.  If  infants,  whether  of  believ- 
ing or  unbelieving  parents,  are  connected  with  the 
people  of  God,  or  are  fit  subjects  for  entering  into  such 
a  connection,  it  is  only  by  virtue  of  their  natural  birth. 
It  is  vain  to  allege  that  their  parents  may  be  the  spirit- 
ual seed  of  Abraham,  and  consequently  interested  in 


106  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

the  promises  of  grace.  The  point  at  issue  is  the  rela- 
tion, not  of  the  parents,  but  of  the  children.  The 
only  relations  which  can  possibly  be  claimed  in  their 
behalf  are  natural,  or  those  for  which  they  are  by  na- 
ture qualified.  But  the  argument  of  the  apostle  ex- 
hibited above  is  decisive  that  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
no  such  relations  are  recognized.  In  this  the  Chris- 
tian economy  differs  essentially  from  the  Jewish.  This 
difference  the  apostle  has  not  only  fully  exhibited,  bul 
he  has  made  it  the  very  foundation  of  his  argument.. 
The  baptism  and  church  membership  of  infants  can 
be  defended  only  as  this  difference  is  overlooked,  or 
denied,  and  the  Jewish  and  Christian  economies  are 
made  to  correspond  in  the  very  point  in  which  it  is  the 
object  of  the  apostle  to  show  that  they  differ,  or,  more 
properly,  are  opposed. 

We  shall  not  be  understood  as  intimating  in  tliese 
remarks,  that  the  argument  of  the  apostle  is  directed 
specifically  against  iho,  jiractice  of  infant  baptism  ;  for 
as  this  was  unknown  in  the  primitive  ages  of  the 
church,  there  was  no  occasion  for  any  allusion  to  it. 
But  to  the  only  ground  on  which  the  practice  can  be 
defended,  it  is  directly  and  irreconcilably  at  variance. 
Of  the  entire  system  of  pedobaptism,  it  is  a  complete 
and  unequivocal  refutation. 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  107 

SECTION  VII. 

THE  SAME  ARGUMENT  CONTINUED. — ROM.  IV  :  9-18,  A  REFUTATION 
OF  PEDOBAPTISM.  THE  COVENANT  OF  CIRCUMCISION  NOT  OF  FORCE 
IN   THE  CHRISTIAN   CHURCH. 

Among  the  few  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
from  which  it  is  supposed  the  right  of  infants  to  bap- 
tism and  church  membership  may  be  inferred,  is  Rom. 
4  :  9-18.  Dr.  Chahners,  after  giving  a  general  expo- 
sition of  verses  9-15,  observes,  "  The  first  lesson  we 
shall  endeavor  to  draw  from  this  passage  is,  that  it 
seems  to  contain  in  it  the  main  strength  of  the  scrip- 
tural argument  for  Infant  Baptism."  This  argument 
as  usually  stated  is  briefly  this, — As  circumcision  was 
to  Abraham,  so  it  was  to  his  descendants,  and  so  is 
baptism  to  christians,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith  ;  and  as  Jewish  infants  were  circumcised,  those 
born  of  christian  parents  should  be  baptized.  In  this 
argument  several  things  essential  to  its  validity  are 
taken  for  granted,  which  will  appear,  upon  examina- 
tion, to  be  opposed  to  facts. 

It  is  assumed  that  circumcision  was  to  the  posterity 
of  Abraham,  no  less  than  to  himself,  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith.  The  groundlessness  of  this  po- 
sition will  readily  become  apparent.  Circumcision 
was  a  "  token"  or  indication  that  its  subjects  were  in- 
terested in  the  covenant  blessings  promised  to  the 
Jewish  nation  as  such.  It  was,  indeed,  an  indispen- 
sable condition  of  enjoying  those  blessings.  Gen.  17: 
14.  But  that  it  was  ever  considered  in  the  case  of  all 
who  received  it,  a  seal  or  attestation  of  the  acceptance 
of  their  faith  as  a  justifying  righteousness,  is,  certainly, 
an  unwarrantable  assumption.     Connexion  with  the 


108  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

Jewish  people  was  in  all  cases  regarded  as  a  sufficient 
reason  for  its  application.  With  Abraham  it  was 
otherwise.  He  had  exercised  faith  in  the  divine  prom- 
ises, his  faith  had  been  accepted,  and  in  attestation  of 
that  acceptance,  he  received  in  behalf  of  himself,  his 
household,  and  his  posterity,  a  rite  by  which  they  were 
to  be  designated  as  a  community  enjoying  the  special 
favor  of  God.  The  peculiarity  of  his  case  is  particu- 
larly referred  to  by  the  apostle  in  the  remark,  that  he 
^^  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,"  i.  e.  he  did  not 
submit  to  it  as  an  institution  already  in  existence,  he 
received  it  directly  from  the  hand  of  God  for  the  pur- 
pose of  transmitting  it  to  his  posterity.  It  is  worthy  of 
notice  that  circumcision,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  here 
called  "  a  seal,"  was  received  but  once,  and  that  by  Abra- 
ham in  its  original  institution.  He  received  it,  more- 
over, as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  a  faith  which  he 
had  yet  being  uncircumcised.  The  apostle  thus,  not 
only  confines  his  description  to  Abraham,  but  directly 
contrasts  his  case  with  that  of  his  posterity.  Comp.  vs. 
10,  11. 

It  is  also  assumed,  ihatbaptism  is  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,  or  an  attestation  on  the  part  of  God 
that  the  subject  possesses  a  faith  that  is  counted  to  him 
for  righteousness.  A  sufficient  refutation  of  this  as- 
sumption is  contained  in  the  fact  that  no  such  use  is 
ever  in  the  New  Testament  ascribed  to  any  external 
rite.  Baptism  is  chiefly  a  profession  on  the  part  of  its 
subjects  of  an  interest  in  the  gospel.  Hence  no  argu- 
ment could  be  deduced  from  the  circumstance  that  cir- 
cumcision is  called  a  seal  in  ver.  11,  eveii  were  the  lan- 
guage applicable  to  Abraham's  posterity  in  general,  no 
less  than  to  himself. 

Another  position  assumed  in  the  argument  under 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  109 

consideration  is,  that  circumcision  and  baptism,  on  the 
supposition  they  may  be  regarded  as  in  some  respects 
seals  of  the  same  thing,  were  designed  to  be  applied  in 
all  cases  to  the  same  class  of  subjects.  Now  should  we 
acknowledge  the  premise  in  this  reasoning  to  be  cor- 
rect, the  conclusion  would  by  no  means  naturally  fol- 
low. Were  we  to  admit  that  to  the  Jewish  infant — 
while  as  yet  he  was  alike  unable  to  appreciate  the 
blessing  of  justification,  and  incapable  of  faith, — cir- 
cumcision was  actually  a  seal  or  attestation  of  his  jus- 
tification by  faith,  it  would  be  obvious,  that  this  could 
not  have  been  the  reason  that  the  rite  was  administer- 
ed in  infancy  ;  but  we  should  naturally  infer,  that  not- 
withstanding the  manifest  incongruity  involved  in  the 
case,  there  were  o^Ae;- things  pertaining  to  the  Jewish 
dispensation  which  rendered  such  a  custom  proper. 
And  our  only  appropriate  inquiry  would  be,  Do  those 
other  reasons  eyiisi  with,  respect  to  Christian  baptism  I 
In  other  words,  in  seeking  an  answer  to  the  question, 
Who  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  proper  subjects  of  each 
institution?  we  should  naturally  look  at  its  general 
object,  the  place  it  was  designed  to  occupy  in  the 
divine  economy,  and  the  distinctive  nature  of  the  dis- 
pensation with  which  it  originated.  And  prosecuting 
the  inquiry  on  these  grounds,  we  should  legitimately 
be  led  to  this  conclusion, — As  the  Jewisheconomy  had 
respect  to  the  natural  descendants  of  Israel  as  such,  and 
was  designed  to  keep  them  a  distinct  people,  circum- 
cision the  appointed  badge  of  nationality,  would,  it 
might  be  expected,  be  applied,  irrespectively  of  age  or 
circumstances,  to  all  the  members,  (that  is,  tlie  male 
members)  of  the  nation.  But,  as  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
is  mainly  spiritual  in  its  nature  and  design,  acknow- 
liedging  as  its  subjects  those  of  whatever  nation,  and 
10 


110  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

those  onlyy  who  become  the  subjects  of  faith  and  re- 
generation, the  rite  of  recognition  would  naturally  be 
restricted  to  such.  It  would  be  singular  reasoning 
indeed,  to  infer,  that  because  circumcision  was  admin- 
istered to  all  who  actually  became  members  of  the  Jew- 
ish commonwealth,  ^Aere/bre  baptism,  the  rite  of  public 
recognition  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  should  be  admin- 
istered to  those  who  are  not  entitled  to  membership. 

The  several  positions  assumed  in  the  argument  sta- 
ted above  are  thus  shown  to  be  equally  untenable  and 
fallacious.  The  argument  utterly  fails  if  placed  on  the 
issue  of  either ;  and  yet  they  are  all  essential  to  its 
validity.  Not  one  of  them  can  be  sustained  ;  and  yet 
not  one  can  be  omitted,  without  rendering  the  others 
useless,  and  leaving  no  ground  for  the  argument. 

But  it  was  not  our  design  in  calling  attention  to  this 
passage  to  prove  that  it  is  silent  with  respect  to  the 
baptism  of  infants.  It  is  especially  deserving  of  exam- 
ination as  containing  a  direct  and  decisive  refutation  of 
the  principles  of  pedobaptism. 

The  apostle,  having  stated  in  chap.  1  the  grand 
theme  of  his  epistle,  to  wit,  that  the  gospel  is  "the 
power  of  God  to  salvation  to  every  one  thai  believeth, 
to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek,"  in  chaps.  2 
and  3,  establishes  the  position  that  the  only  circumcis- 
ion known  among  christians  is  spiritual.  (See  Sect.  5). 
He  remarks  that  "  the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is 
by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  is  unto  all,  and  upon  all  them 
that  believe;  for  there  is  no  difference;"  that  "there  is 
one  God  who  justifies  the  circumcision  and  the  uncir- 
cumcision  alike  by  faith."  He  then,  in  chap.  4,  ap- 
peals in  confirmation  of  his  position  to  the  case  of 
Abraham.     He  shows,  not  only  that  the  ground  on 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  Ill 

which  he  was  accepted  was  independent  of  the  law  of 
circumcision,  but  that  he  sustains  no  relation  to  the 
Christian  church  vihich  can  be  identified  with  that  law. 
He  was  not  justified  by  works;  but  it  is  said,  "He  be- 
lieved God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  rigliteousness," 
vs.  1-3.  After  quoting-  a  passage  from  the  32d  Psalm, 
in  which  the  blessing  of  gratuitous  justification  is 
brought  to  view,  the  apostle  inquires,  "Cometh  this 
blessedness,  then,  on  the  circumcision  only,  or  upon 
the  uncircumcision  also?  for  we  say  that  faith  was 
reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteousness.  How  was  it 
then  reckoned  1  When  he  was  in  circumcision  oi  in 
uncircumcision  1  Not  in  circumcision,  but  in  uncir- 
cumcision." vs.  9,  10.  It  thus  appears  that  he  was 
justified  not  only  by  faith,  but  altogether  independent- 
ly of  circumcision.  He  even  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, as  Dr.  Barnes  observes,  "iw  consequence  of 
his  being  justified  by  faith;"  as  an  attestation  of  the 
fact  that  he  had  been  previously  accepted, — "  a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  a  faith  which  he  had  while  living 
in  a  state  of  uncircumcision." 

But  what  is  to  be  inferred  from  these  fa-cts  ?  What 
was  the  design  of  God  in  observing  this  order  of  ante- 
cedence and  sequence?  Why  was  Abraham  justified 
while  in  uncircumcision  ?  and  why  is  circumcision 
itself  a  proof  of  this  fact  ?  Mark  the  answer  of  the 
apostle, — "that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that 
believe  though  they  be  not  circumcised,  that  righteous- 
ness might  be  imputed  to  them  also:  and  that  he 
might  be  the  father  of  the  circumcision — i.  e.  of  (he 
Jews,  (comp.  chap.  2  :  30) , — to  them  who  are  not  of 
the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps 
of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham  lohich  he  had  yet 
being  uncircumcised,^^ — who  are  related  to  him,  not  on 


112  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

the  ground  that  they  have  been  circumcised,  and  are 
connected  with  his  natural  descendants,  but  because 
they  resemble  him  in  the  possession  of  a  faith  which 
has  no  connexion  with  circumcision.  The  apostle  thus 
shows  that  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  Abraham  sus- 
tains precisely  the  same  relation  to  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
Simple  faith  is  sufficient  to  authorize  the  Gentiles  to 
claim  him  as  their  father.  And  the  only  relation 
recognized  by  the  gospel  wliich  even  his  natural  de- 
scendants sustain  to  him,  results  from  the  same  cause: 
and  this  is  independent  of  the  institution  of  circumcis- 
ion for  the  obvious  reason,  that  that  institution  had  not 
been  introduced  when  the  ground  of  this  relationship 
was  established. 

In  confirmation  of  this  position  the  apostle  in  verses 
13-18,  appeals  to  the py^omise  by  which  Abraham  was 
formally  constituted  the  father  of  the  faithful,  (comp. 
vs.  16, 17) ,  and  shows  that  this  had  no  connexion  with 
the  law  enjoining  circumcision.  "For  it  was  not 
through  the  law  that  the  promise  was  to  Abraham,  or 
to  his  seed,  tliat  he  should  be  heir  of  the  world," — or 
that  '  in  him  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  be 
blessed,'  (comp.  ver.  17) , — "but  through  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith."  By  the  law  to  which  allusion  is  here 
had,  and  which  is  contrasted  with  the  gratuitous  prom- 
ise which  Abraham  received  respecting  his  spiritual 
seed,  is  piobably  meant  the  ritual  and  other  observan- 
ces enjoined  on  him  and  his  posterity.  Circumcision 
in  the  time  of  the  apostle  was  usually  spoken  of  as  be- 
longing to  the  law  of  Moses  ; — see  Acts  15  :  1-5  ;  Gal. 
5 :  2-6 ; — and  in  this  particular  the  law  was  repre- 
sented as  extending  back  in  its  lequirements  to  the 
time  of  Abraham.  John  7  :  22,  2.3.  Hence  it  is  en- 
tirely natural  that  the  apostle  in  speaking  of  Abraham 


ITS    SUBJECTS, 


ll3 


in  respect  to  his  circumcision,  should  represent  him  as 
interested  in  the  law,  and  should  place  in  contrast  with 
the  claim  to  the  divine  favor  which  he  might  be  sup- 
posed to  have  acquired  by  obedience  to  its  requisitions, 
his  righteousness  by  faith.  The  promise  was  not 
through  the  law,  inasmuch  as  it  had  been  given  to 
Abraham,  and  the  relation  between  him  and  his  spirit- 
ual seed  which  it  contemplated,  accordingly  establish- 
ed, (comp.  vs.  10-12).  before  the  law  in  any  of  its  ob- 
servances was  introduced.  "  Tl)e  covenant,"  says  Dr. 
Barnes  commenting  on  ver.  13,  "  was  made  Je/bre  the 
law  of  circumcision  was  given,  and  long  before  the  law 
of  Moses,  (comp.  Gal.  3 :  IG,  17, 18),  and  was  independ- 
ent of  both." 

"  For  if  they  who  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  faith  is 
made  void,  and  the  promise  rendered  of  no  effect," 
ver.  14.  The  law  made  the  enjoyment  of  its  promised 
blessings  conditional.  It  presciibed,  for  example,  that 
"the  uncircumcised  manchild  should  be  cut  oft'  from 
his  people."  Gen.  17 :  14.  Now  if  compliance  with 
certain  conditions  of  the  law  are  necessary  for  inherit- 
ing the  promise,  then  faith  is  clearly  insufficient,  and 
consequently  "void;"  and  the  promise  is  ineffectual, 
for  the  obvious  reason  that  the  enjoyment  of  its  bless- 
ings depends  not  on  itself,  but  on  the  observances  of 
the  law.  "For  the  law  worketh  wrath."  It  shuts 
out  from  favor  those  who  do  not  comply  with  its  requi- 
sitions. See  Gen.  17  :  14.  "Therefore  it  is  by  faith," 
and  not  on  condiiions  prescribed  by  the  law,  "  that  it 
might  be  by  grace,  to  the  end  the  promise  might  be 
sure  to  all  the  seed," — the  seed  to  whom  the  promise 
relates, — "  not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to 
that  also  which  is  of  the  faiih  of  Abiahani," — not  to 

that  portion   of  the  seed  merely  wIjo  belong  to  the 
10* 


114  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

number  of  his  natural  descendants  to  whom  the  laW 
was  given,  but  to  those  also  whose  only  relation  to  him 
is  that  acquired  by  faith.  It  thus  appears  that  simple 
faith  is,  under  the  gospel,  the  all  sufficient  lequisite  of 
relationship  to  Abraham,  "who  in  the  sight"  or  esti- 
mation "of  God,  is  the  father  of  us  all ;  as  it  is  writ- 
ten, '  A  father  of  many  nations  have  I  constituted 
thee.'" 

From  the  foregoing  examination  it  is  obvious  that 
the  passage  is  in  several  distinct  points  of  light,  a  de- 
cisive refutation  of  the  principles  of  pedobaptism. 

1.  It  establishes  the  fact  that  all  relation  to  Abraham 
recognized  by  the  gospel  is  independent  of  the  law  or 
covenant  of  circumcision.  Pedobaptism  assumes  that 
relationship  to  Abraham  in  the  Christian  church,  im- 
plies an  interest  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  record- 
ed Gen.  17,  and  that  its  requisitions  are  consequently 
binding  on  all  who  hold  such  relationship.  With  this 
assumption  the  argument  of  the  apostle  is  directly  at 
variance.  He  shows  that  Abraham  was  constituted 
"the  father"  of  all  who  are  related  to  him  under  the 
gospel,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  wliile  yetuncircum- 
cised, — before  the  law  or  covenant  of  circumcision  was 
given ;  and  therefore  independently  of  its  provisions 
or  requirements.  Their  relationship,  their  privileges, 
their  state  in  every  respect,  would  have  been  the  same, 
had  that  law  or  covenant  never  existed, — except  as  we 
regard  it  a  means  of  keeping  the  descendants  of  Israel 
a  distinct  people  until  the  coming  of  the  Messiah. 
From  this  conclusion,  if  the  argument  of  the  apostle  be 
duly  considered,  we  see  no  possibility  of  escaping. 
If,  therefore,  the  covenant  of  circumcision  is  of  force 
among  the  members  of  the  Christian  church,  it  must 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  115 

be  so  for  some  other  reason  than  thattliey  are  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  and  entitled  to  the  blessings  which  such 
a  relation  involves. 

2.  The  correctness  of  this  conclusion  v/ill  be  further 
obvious,  if  we  consider  the  object  of  the  apostle's  argu- 
ment, viz.  to  show  that  circumcision  on  tbe  part  of 
christians  is  unnecessary.  The  Judaizing  Christians 
contended  that  "it  was  needful  to  circumcise"  all  who 
were  converted  to  Christianity, especially  on  the  ground 
that  they  could  not  be  saved  without  it.  See  Acls  15: 
1,5,24;  Gal.  2:  14-16;  5:  2,3.  This  position  the 
apostle  undertakes  to  refute.  And  he  evidently  de- 
signs to  show,— as  in  Gal.  2  :  14-16  ;  5  :  1-6  ;  6:  12- 
15;  Phil.  3:  2-7;  etc., — that  circumcision  is  unne- 
cessary, in  such  a  sense  as  not  to  be  obligatory.  He 
maintains  that  there  is  no  difference  on  gospel  ground 
between  the  circumcised  and  the  uncircumcised.  Chap. 
2  :  25-28 ;  3  :  22,  29,  30.  Abraham  is  "  the  father  of 
all  who  believe  though  they  be  not  circumcised.''^  The 
apostle  would  not,  certainly,  have  said, — 'though  they 
live  in  disobedience  to  God.'  His  language  can  be 
explained  only  on  the  admission  that  he  intended  to 
indicate  that  circumcision  need  not  be  observed.  And 
his  argument  is  this, — The  relation  which  christians 
sustain  to  Abraham,  no  less  than  the  blessings  involved 
therein,  is  independent  of  the  law  of  circumcision  ; 
therefore  that  law  is  not  a  matter  wilh  which  they  are 
concerned;  it  may  be  entirely  disregarded.  Now//" 
this  argument  be  valid,  it  will  apply  to  any  rite  suppo- 
sed to  have  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  or  which 
is  administered  on  the  same  grounds.  If  it  be  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  circumcision  need  not  be  observed, 
it  is  equally  conclusive  against  any  other  practice  which 
rests  on  the  same  authority  ;  and  if  infant  baptism,  as 


116  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 

is  contended,  has  taken  the  place  of  infant  circumcis- 
ion, we  have  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle  directly  to 
the  point  that  it  is  not  required.  It  is  self-evident,  if 
the  original  rite  be  no\.xe(\\\'ne A  for  the  reasons  assigned, 
the  same  is  tiue  of  the  sulistitute.  The  stream  cannot 
rise  above  its  fountain.  And  we  must  either  assume 
that  the  apostle  reasons  inconclusively,  or  we  must 
admit  that  the  law  or  covenant  of  ciicumcision  is  in  no 
respect  obligatory  on  christians. 

3.  The  passage  further  shows  that  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  cannot,  fiom  its  very  nature^  be  offeree 
under  the  gospel.  From  Gen.  17,  we  learn  that  Jeho- 
vah, after  repeating  the  gracious  jifomise  which  he  had 
previously  made  to  Abraham  as  an  individual,  and  in 
which  his  spiritual  seed  are  interested,  proceeds  to 
establish  between  him  and  his  natural  descendants,  or 
"his  seed  after  him  in  their  generations,"  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Himself,  on  the  other,  a  covenant  which  is 
called  in  the  New  Testament  "the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision." Acts  7  :  8.  A  distinguishing  feature  of 
this  covenant  was  that  it  was  conditional.  "The  un- 
circumcised  man-child  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people; 
he  hath  broken  my  covenant."  Gen.  17:  14.  Now 
we  appeal  to  the  candid  reader  if  it  is  not  the  express 
design  of  the  apostle  to  show  that  this  covenant;  such 
as  it  really  is,  is  neither  in  its  letter,  nor  in  its  spirit, 
applicable  to  those  who  are  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abra- 
ham. Is  it  not  placed  in  direct  contrast  with  the 
promise  on  which  their  relation  to  him  is  predicated, 
and  which,  except  so  far  as  it  becomes  available  on  the 
exercise  of  faith,  is  loithout  conditions.  The  promise 
with  all  its  blessings,  is  to  them,  no  less  than  to  him, 
solely  "through  the  righteousness  of  faith,"  ver.  13. 
If  then  the  covenant  itself  is  not  of  force,  certainly  its 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  117 

requisitions y  as  such,  cannot  be  binding.  And  the  rite 
of  circumcision,  if  obligatory  on  christians,  either  as 
originally  given,  or  in  the  form  of  a  substitute,  must  be 
so  for  some  other  reason  than  any  contained  in  the  cov- 
enant recorded  Gen.  17. 

4.  The  passage  establishes  the  fact  that  the  gospel 
recngnizes  no  relation^  either  to  Abraham,  or  to  the 
Christian  churchy  that  is  not  acquired  by  faith.  Under 
the  former  dispensation  the  entire  Jewish  nation  sus- 
tained a  covenant  relation  to  God,  by  virtue  of  which 
they  were  entitled  to  certain  peculiar  privileges.  To 
this  fact  particular  allusion  is  made  in  chap.  3  :  1,  S".. 
The  Jews  as  those  who  had  been  circumcised,  enjoyed 
advantages  which  did  not  pertain  to  other  nations. 
The  promises  of  God  to  them  as  a  people  were  fulfilled 
without  regard  to  the  fact  that  many  of  them  were 
destitute  of  true  faith,  vs.  3,  4.  Comp.  chap.  11  :  28, 
29.  The  apostle,  however,  teaches  that  all  such  dis- 
tinctions and  privileges  are  of  no  avail  as  affording  any 
claim  to  the  peculiar  blessings  of  the  gospel  involved 
in  justification  before  God.  Chap.  2  :  17-23,  All 
relation  involving  the  special  favor  of  God ^  implied  in 
the  term  "  Jew"  as  used  in  chap  2  :  2S,  29, — depends 
not  on  '•'-outward!''  and  natural  circumstances  or  con- 
nexions, but  on  personaZ  and  "  2n?rarfZ-'  qualities,  vs. 
28,  29.  Every  man  is  treated  according  to  his  indi- 
vidual deserts.  Chap.  2  :  6,  9,  10,  11.  As  "  all  have 
sinned,"  chap.  3  :  23  ;  so  "  the  rigb.teousness  which  is 
by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  is  unto  all,  and  upon  all  them 
that  believe ;  for  theie  is  no  difference,"  vs.  22,  26. 
Abraham  is  the  father,  not  of  those  who  are  connected 
with  him  merely  by  natural  descent,  but  of  those  who 
walk  in  the  steps  of  his  faith,  ver.  12.  The  promise  of 
gospel  blessings  becomes  available,   not  on  principles 


118  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

embraced  in  the  law  including  the  rite  of  circumcision, 
but  simply  on  the  exercise  of  faith,  vs.  13-16.  Right- 
eousness is  imputed  to  us  only  on  condition  that  we 
individually  "  l)elieve  on  him  who  raised  up  Jesus  our 
Lord  from  the  dead,"  ver.  24. 

The  conditions  on  which  special  privileges  were  en- 
joyed under  the  former  dispensation  are  thus  directly 
contrasted  with  those  required  by  the  gospel.  In  the 
one  case,  those  related  to  Abraham  by  natural  genera- 
tion, among  whom  infants  were  necessarily  included, 
were  regarded  as  the  people  of  God,  and  were  interested 
in  the  covenant  which  he  had  made  with  them  as  a 
nation.  In  the  other,  an  entirely  different  principle  of 
relationship  is  applied, — a  principle  that  is  not  only  in- 
dependent of,  but  incompatible  with  the  acquiring  of 
relationship  by  natural  generation.  Those  only  who 
become  the  children  of  Abraham  hy  faith,  are  counted 
for  his  seed. 

Is  it  said,  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  those  only 
who  are  justified  by  the  gospel ;  and  consequently  of 
such  as  are  capable  of  believing  ?  We  admit  it ;  and 
add,  that  he  represents  these,  and  these  only,  as  being 
"  the  seed'^  to  whom  the  promise  pertains.  They  are 
the  children  of  Abraham  becauf:e  ihej  are  believers,  and 
thus  walk  in  his  steps.  A  relationship  to  him  cannot 
exist  on  the  part  of  any  individual,  before  it  is  acquir- 
ed;  and  it  is  acquired  only  by  faith.  On  this  princi- 
ple the  promise  of  justification,  (comp.  vs.  11,  13,  14, 
22-25)  becomes  '''■sure  to  a/Z  the  seed,"  from  among 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  ver.  16.  If,  therefore,  the 
infant  offspring  of  christians  are  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
they  will  surely  be  justified  and  saved  ; — nay,  they 
have,  of  necessity,  already  become  like  Abraham,  in 
the  exercise  of  faith  in  God.     The  gospel  knows  of  no 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  119 

lelation  to  him  on  the  part  of  any,  whether  infants  or 
adults,  who  are  not  tlie  subjects  of  faith.  It  regards 
nothing  as  a  title  to  its  distinguishing  privileges  but 
personal  and  spiritual  qualifications. 

The  argument  of  the  apostle,  as  thus  exhibited,  fur- 
nishes a  refutation  of  pedobaptism  that  is  eminently 
conclusive  and  practical.  Is  it  assumed  that  christians 
by  being  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  are  interested 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  and  entitled  to  what 
is  regarded  as  its  sealing  rite?  and  that  the  same  is 
true  of  all  who  are  connected  with  them  by  natural 
generation  ?  It  is  not  necessary  to  urge  in  reply,  that 
the  requisitions  of  that  covenant  are  not,  and  cannot 
be,  by  christians,  in  many  particulars,  reduced  to  prac- 
tice ; — that  they  extended  to  none  but  the  males  of 
the  nation,  and  of  these,  to  all  bought  with  money,  or 
born  in  the  house  whether  servants  or  children  ; — that 
circumcision  was  required  on  the  eighth  day,  and  was 
observed  as  a  badge  of  nationality.  On  facts  of  this 
kind,  however  conclusive  they  may  be,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  insist.  We  have  the  explicit  and  authoritative 
decision  of  the  apostle  upon  the  point.  He  has  called 
attention  to  the  subject  for  the  express  purpose  of 
showing  that  there  is  no  ground  for  the  assumption. 
He  has  shown  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  both 
from  its  nature^  and  the  time  and  circumstances  of  its 
introduction,  cannot  be  of  force  in  the  Christian  church, 
and  that  consequently  its  requisitions  are  not  obligator 
ry ;  in  fine,  that  all  relation  to  Abraham,  and  all  claim 
to  the  special  favor  of  God,  under  the  gospel,  are  ac- 
quired upon  different  principles  from  those  that  applied 
in  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  institutions,  are  the 
result,  not  of  natural  generation  or  external  circum- 
stances, but  solely  of  personal  faith  or  regeneration. 


120  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

We  thus  find  the  apostle,  not  merely  withholding" 
the  expression  of  any  sentiment  that  could  fairly  be 
adduced  in  favor  of  admitting  infants  to  baptism  and 
church  membership,  but  actually  engaged  in  directly 
opposing  the  ground  on  which  the  practice  is  defended, 
and  establishing  principles  which  positively  exclude  it 
from  all  place  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 


SECTION  VIII. 

THE  SAME  ARGUMENT  CONTINUED. — BAPTISM    ITSELF    APPEALED  TO 
IN  REFUTATION    OF   PEDOBAPTISM. 

The  evidence  already  adduced  in  refutation  of  the 
ground  on  which  infant  baptism  is  defended,  or  in 
proof  of  the  position  thai  no  one  is  connected  with  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  or  entitled  to  its  ordinances,  by  vir- 
tue of  relations  acquired  by  natural  birth,  might  surely 
suffice  for  every  purpose  of  conviction.  We  may  be 
allowed,  however,  to  call  attention  to  two  or  three  ad- 
ditional passages,  which,  besides  inculcating  the  same 
doctrine,  refer  in  confirmation  of  its  truth  to  baptism 
itself. 

We  first  notice  the  language  of  the  apostle  in  Col. 
2  :  11-14.  In  ver.  14,  he  speaks  of  Christ  as  "  blot- 
ting out  the  kand-wridng  of  ordinances,  that  was  against 
us,  which  was  contrary  to  us,  and  taking  it  out  of  the 
way,  nailing  it  to  his  cross."  Among  these  ordinances 
the  rite  of  circumcision  was  evidently  in  his  concep- 
tion, included.  This  is  obvious  from  verses  11,  12,  of 
which  ver.  14  is  an  amplification.  "  In  whom  also  ye 
are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without 
hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  121 

the  circumcision  of  Christ ;  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism, wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the 
faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the 
dead."  Comp.  Rom.  10:  9.  The  apostle, — so  far  is 
he  from  intimating  that  the  rite  of  circumcision  is  in 
substance  continued  in  the  Christian  church,  havir^g 
only  been  changetl  in  form,  or  that  baptism  has  been 
introduced  as  a  substitute  for  circumcision. — teaches, 
that  the  circumcision  of  Christ, — the  only  circumcision 
that  he  requires,  or  that  is  recognized  in  his  kingdom, — 
is  "  made  without  hands,"  is  spiritual,  and  consists  in 
"putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh."  In 
confirmation  of  this  position  he  appeals  to  baptism,  in 
which  the  subject  in  being  buried,  professes  that  he  is 
dead,  that  like  one  who  h^s  jmt  off  his  body  in  (/eath, 
so  he  has  put  off  the  body  of  his  sins,  and  has  entered 
upon  anew  state  of  existence.  The  contrast  indicated 
in  the  passage  is  not  between  two  external  rites,  one 
of  which  may  be  disregarded  since  the  other  has  been 
introduced  in  its  stead  ;  but  rather  the  reverse.  That 
which  is  made  icit/i  hands,  the  Jewish  circumcision,  is 
not  required,  because  that  which  is  made  ivi/hout  hands, 
the  circumcision  of  Christ,  has  been  experienced. 
Comp.  Eph  2  :  11.  1  hat  this  is  the  argument  of  the 
apostle  will  not,  we  presume,  be  disputed.  But  if  this 
reasoning  be  conclusive  in  showing  that  tfie  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision  is  unnecessary,  it  is  conclusive  against  any 
rite  that  is  supposed  to  have  come  in  the  room  of  cir- 
cumcision, or  which  is  administered  on  the  same 
grounds.  It  is  obvious,  a  rite  designed  as  a  hixdge  of 
natural  relationship  to  Abraham,  can  have  no  place  in 
an  economy  where  such  lelationship  is  not  recognized 
where  spiritual  qualifications  alone  are  of  nny  avail. 
That  this  is  the  nature  of  the  Christian  economy,  is 
11 


122  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

evident  from  baptism,  the  ordinance  whereby  an  in- 
terest in  this  economy  is  indicated,  in  which  the  sub- 
jects invariably  profess  that  they  are  new  creatures, 
that  they  have  become  di'ad  to  sin,  and  have  risen  with 
Christ  to  a  new  and  holy  life.  Comp.  Rom.  6:  1-11. 
Baptism,  as  indicative  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  the 
king^dom  of  Christ,  is  consequently  proof  that  circum- 
cision, and  the  grounds  on  which  it  was  practiced,  have 
been  entirely  set  aside.  If  infants,  therefore,  are  bap- 
tized, it  must  be  done  for  reasons  which  the  very  ordi- 
nance itself  properly  administered,  clearly  indicates 
have  ceased  to  exist! 

Another  passage  of  kindred  import  occurs  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Galatians.  The  apostle  endeavors  to 
prove,  by  a  course  of  argument  similar  to  that  adopted 
Rom.  4  :  9-18,  that  a  natural  relationship  to  Abraham 
is  not  known  in  the  gospel,  chap.  3  :  6-9  ;  that  the 
only  relationship  recognized,  is  acquired  by  faith. 
"  They  who  are  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abra- 
ham,"— "  are  the  children  of  Abraham  "  verses  7,  9. 
The  promise  of  gospel  blessings  (vs.  8,  18),  is  made 
only  to  Christ  and  those  who  by  faith  become  united 
to  him  as  members  of  the  same  body,  vs.  16,  22,  28, 
29.  Those  who  become  his,  are  "  the  children  of 
God,"  and  "  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  heirs  according 
to  the  promise,"  vs.  26,  29.  In  this  designation  those 
who,  like  the  Jews,  are  merely  "  bnrn  after  the  flesh" — 
or  without  the  special  interposition  of  God,  which  un- 
der the  gospel  is  regeneration  by  the  Spirit, — aie  not 
included,"  chap.  4  :  27-31.  A  connexion  with  Abra- 
ham by  natural  generation,  or  independently  of  per- 
sonal faith  in  Christ  and  vital  union  with  him,  is  thus 
repeatedly,  and  in  various  forms  of  expression,  declared 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  123 

to  be  unknown  in  the  kingdom  of^ Christ.  And  in 
illustration  or  confirmation  of  this  position,  the  apostle 
appeals  to  the  import  and  use  of  baptism.  Chap  3 : 
26,  27.  "  Ye  are  all  the  children  of  God,"  not  by  any- 
natural  connexion  with  Abraham,  (comp.  vs.  7,  9,  22,) 
but  simply  "  by  faiih  in  Christ  Jesus."  Comp.  vs.  9, 
14.  Proof  of  this  is  contained  in  the  fact  that  "  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,"  in 
obedience  to  his  appointment,  "have,"  without  regard 
to  any  such  connexion,  "  put  on  Christ,"  and  are  con- 
sequently to  be  recognized  as  christians  in  full  fellow- 
ship, The  fact  that  you  have  all  alike,  without  dis- 
tinction of  natural  descent,  been  received  to  baptism, 
an  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ,  and  administered  by 
his  authority,  is  evidence  that  no  such  distinction  ex- 
ists. That  this  is  essentially  the  argument  of  the 
apostle,  we  think  admits  of  no  doubt. 

Is  it  said  that  infants  are  entitled  to  baptism  by  virtue 
of  their  natural  relation  to  their  parents,  and  through 
them  to  Abraham  1  The  apostle  heie  appeals  to  bap- 
tism itself  in  proof  that  no  such  relation  is  recognized 
in  the  gospel  ;  that  those  who,  like  the  Jews,  are  sim- 
ply "  born  after  the  tlesh,"  are  not  ackjiowiedged  as 
the  seed  of  Abraham.  And  that  which  declares  that 
the  ground  of  a  practice  does  not  exist,  cannot,  cer- 
tainly, be  properly  used  as  a  means  of  continuing  that 
practice  ! 

Equally  conclusive  is  the  argument  of  the  apostle  in 
his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  Having  reminded  his 
brethren  that  they  weie  saved  by  grace  through  faith, 
he  directs  their  attention  to  the  fact  that  as  Gentiles 
they  weie  "  called  Uncircumcision  by  those  who  were 
called  the  Circumcision  in  the  flesh  made  with  hands." 


124  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

Chap.  2  :  11.  In  connexion  with  (his  implied  allusion 
to  a  circumcision  which  is  "of  the  heart  in  the  spirit," 
and  "  made  without  hands,"  and  which  is  alone  of  any 
avail  in  the  kingdom  of  Clirist,  he  observes,  that  the 
Gentile  Christians,  who  had  formerly  been  excluded 
from  the  privileges  of  the  people  of  God,  had  been 
brought  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  ver.  13.  The 
blessings  of  the  gospel  were  otTercd  e(jually  to  Jews 
and  Gentiles.  The  *'wall  of  parlition,"  or  the  distinc- 
tion which  had  formerly  existed  between  them,  had 
been  obliterated,  ver.  14.  The  "  enmity,"  or  that 
which  excluded  the  Gentiles  from  favor,  and  designa- 
ted them  as  aliens,  to  wit,  ''the  law  of  commandments 
contained  in  ordinances,"  had  been  abolished,  ver.  15. 
Both  had  been  made  "one,"  or  brought  togelher  in 
"one  body."  Peace  or  union  had  been  effected  by 
the  creation  of  one  new  man  in  Christ,  ver.  15.  Among 
the  ordinances  the  abolishing  of  Vk'hich  had  broken 
down  the  middle  wall  of  partition,  that  most  prominent 
in  the  apostle's  view  was  evidently  circumcision.  To 
this  as  marking  the  distinction  which  had  existed  be- 
tween Jews  and  Gentiles,  he  particularly  refers  in  the 
preceding  context,  ver.  11.  This,  ihen,  we  have  his 
express  testimony,  has  been  abolished  ;  and  that  not 
merely  as  an  external  lite,  but  in  as  far  as  it  was  an 
indication  and  means  of  partition,  or  separation,  or  dis- 
tinction. Not  merely  has  its  form  be(>n  set  aside  ;  but 
its  design,  its  use,  its  cfiect,  have  been  superseded  by 
the  gospel.  This  the  apostle,  if  his  language  be  not 
destitute  of  meaning,  distinctly  asserts. 

Is  it  pretended  that  a  portion  of  the  human  family 
are,  from  their  birth,  to  be  distinguished  from  the  re- 
mainder 1  that  they  are  to  receive  a  rite  of  the  same 
import  as  circumcision,  and  be  numbered  among  the 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  125 

people  of  God  1  The  apostle  has  established  the  posi- 
tion that  all  such  walls  of  separation,  all  such  distinc- 
tions, all  such  ordinances,  have  been  done  away.  His 
argument  to  this  effect  is  equally  decisive,  whether  it 
be  contended  that  the  rite  of  circumcision  has  been 
continued  in  the  Christian  chinch  with  a  change  of 
name  and  form,  or  that  anotlier  ordinance  of  the  same 
import,  and  lo  be  administered  on  the  same  principles, 
has  been  introduced  in  its  stead.  The  reason  for  its 
observance  has  ceased  to  exist.  All  now  stand  on  the 
same  ground.  All  are  entitled  to  the  same  privileges 
on  the  same  terms.  One  is  not  a  member  of  Christ's 
kingdom  on  the  ground  of  faith,  while  another  can 
claim  membership  without  failh.  One  does  not  belong 
lo  "  the  household  of  God"  by  virtue  of  regeneration, 
while  another  is  connected  therewith  on  the  ground  of 
natural  generation.  All  become  members,  and  enjoy 
the  privileges  of  membership,  on  the  same  conditions. 
The  apostle,  having  thus  in  chap.  2,  established  the 
position  that  christians,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  have 
been  constituted  owe /?pw  man  in  Christ;  that  "both 
have  been  reconciled  in  one  body" — the  law  of  com- 
mandments contained  in  ordinances,  by  which  peculiar 
privileges  were  enjoyed  inconsequence  of  natural  de- 
scent, having  been  abolished, — reverts,  in  chap.  4,  to 
the  same  subject,  and  appeals  in  confirmotion  of  his 
position  to  the  boptis?7i  of  christians.  "There  is  one 
body,  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope 
of  your  calling  ;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism"  vs. 
4,5.  "  There  is  one  body."  All  christians  are.  with- 
out respect  to  nation  or  descent,  united  to  Christ,  and 
entitled  to  the  same  privileges.  This  is  evident,  inas- 
much as  they  are  all  endowed  with  one  Spirit  ;  they 
have  all  been  called  in  one  hope  ;  they  have  all  ac- 
11* 


126  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

knowledged  one  Lord;  ihry  have  all  embraced  ooe 
faith  ;  they  have  all  submitted  lo  one  baptism.  The 
fact  that  they  have  all  been  baptized  by  divine  author- 
ity into  the  same  profession,  and  on  the  same  princi- 
ples, is  proof  that  they  all  belong  equally  to  "one 
body,"  and  without  distinction  of  nation  or  circum- 
stances, are  entitled  to  equal  privileges. 

Now  on  the  supposition  that  baptism  is  to  be  admin- 
istered on  the  principles  of  pedobaptism,  the  facts  and 
conclusions  in  the  case  would  be  directly  the  reverse. 
Baptism  would  then  be  proof  that  the  distinctions 
which  existed  under  the  former  dispensation,  instead 
of  being  done  a:way,  were  still  preserved  : — for  although 
the  subjects  of  them  might  be  somewhat  changed,  the 
general  principle  would  continue  in  all  its  force.  In- 
stead of  showing  that  the  ordinances  indicative  of  these 
distinctions  have  been  abolished,  it  would  be  itself  an 
instance  of  their  perpetuation.  Instead  of  teaching 
that  all  are  now  entitled  to  the  same  privileges,  and 
received  on  the  same  teims,  it  would  be  proof  that 
some  by  virtue  of  their  natural  descent  were  entitled 
to  peculiar  privileges,  and  that  the  terms  of  admission 
to  the  church  in  the  case  of  some,  were  essentially 
different  from  what  they  were  in  the  case  of  others. 
Instead  of  illustrating  the  fact  that  in  the  one  body 
theie  is  but  one  Spirit,  it  would  show  that  many  of  the 
members  were  avowedly  destitute  of  the  Spirit.  In- 
stead of  indicating  that  all  have  been  called  in  one 
hope,  it  would  prove  that  many  had  not  been  called 
at  all,  and  were  destitute  of  all  hope.  Instead  of  im- 
plying the  acknowledgment  of  one  Lord,  it  would  be 
evidence  that  some  had  not  yet  become  acquainted 
Avith  the  Lord  Jesus.  Instead  of  being  the  profession 
of  one  faith,  it  would  denote  that  a  portion  of  its  sub- 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  127 

jects  were  entirely  destitute  of  faith.  Instead  of  being 
itself  one  baptism,  it  woukl  be  essentially  and  clearly 
two.  Administered  to  different  classes  of  subjects, 
upon  different  grounds,  for  different  purposes,  with 
different  qualifications,  and  under  different  circumstan- 
ces in  almost  every  particular,  it  could  not  certainly, 
without  involving  a  contradiction,  be  considered  ^^  one 
baptism."  The  a])ostle  speaks  of  one  baptism,  not  ni 
respect  to  its  form  and  name  merely,  but  in  a  sense 
which  implies  that  the  subjects  of  it  are  united  in  ac- 
knowledging the  same  Lord,  and  in  professing  the 
same  faith,  the  same  hope,  the  same  holy  calling.  If 
baptism  is  one  in  these  particulars,  it  is  absurd  to  con- 
tend that  it  can  be  properly  administered  where  all  of 
these  are  wanting.  Or  if  baptism  is  evidence,  that, 
while  its  subjects  are  united  on  the  same  terms  in  one 
body,  the  distinctions  arising  from  natural  relationship 
have  been  done  away,  it  is  the  height  of  inconsistency 
to  administer  it  on  the  very  ground  that  these  distinc- 
tions still  exist.* 


SECTION  IX. 

THE  lUr.ELEVANCV  OF    THE    ARGUMENT   FOR   PEDOBAPTISM   DRAWN  FROM  THE 
SALVATION   OF    INFANTS. 

It  will  be  objected,  perhaps,  to  the  reasoning  ad- 
vanced in  proof  that  infants  are  not  to  be  recognized 
as  members  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  that  it  precludes 
the  hope  of  their  salvation.  A  little  examination, 
however,  will  show  that  such  an  objection  is  utterly 
groundless.     We  trust  we  shall  be  able  to  make  it  per- 

*  Note  H,  Appendix. 


12S 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


fectly  clear,  that  the  salvation  of  those  who  die  in 
infancy  may  be  luaintained,  without  impairing,  or  in 
any  way  aift  cling',  the  arguments  adduced  in  refuta- 
tion of  infant  baptism  and  churcli  membership. 

1.  The  specific   proposition    established  in  the  pre- 
ceding sections,  is,  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  requires 
in  its  members  spiritual  qualifications,   in    distinction 
from  those  acquired  by  natural  birth.     In  this  it  differs 
from  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  in  which  to  be  born 
of  Hebrew  parents,  was  a  prescribed  qualification   for 
membership      And  as  this  was  possessed   in  infancy, 
no  less  than  in  manhood,   it  was   appropriate  that  the 
sign  of  recognition  should  be  then  applied.     But  with 
respect  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ  all  mankind  as  born 
into  the   world,  sustain  precisely  the  same   relations. 
By   nature  they  are   alike  destitute  of  that  character 
which    is   essential   to  membersliip.     Nor   will    they, 
dying  in  infancy,  be  saved,  inconsequence  of  any  thing" 
that  they  possess   by  nature.     They  will  never  be  ad- 
mitted to  heaven  by  virtue   of  what  they  inherit  from 
their  parents.     For,  aside  from  the  fact  that  their  sal- 
vation will  be  effected  purel}^  by  grace,  independently 
of  considerations  arising  from  their  natural  relation- 
ship, it  is  evident  they  can  never  be  confirmed  in   the 
bliss  of  heaven,  unless  that  predisposition,  or  bias,  or 
tendency  to  evil,  which  leads  those  who  grow  up  into 
life,  invariably  to  pursue  the  ways  of  sin,  is  removed 
or  eradicated  ;  and  this  is  equivalent  to  their  being  born 
again  or  i egenerated.     It  is  only  on  condition   of  this 
change  that  their  salvation  can  be  predicated.     So  that 
it  is  true,  without  limitation,  that  the  prescribed  qualifi- 
cations for  membership  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  are, 
not  natural,  or  those  acquired    by  natural   birth,   but 
sjnritual,  or  those  resulting  from  the  special  manifesta- 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  129 

tion  of  the  grace  of  God,  and   the  actual  inipaitation 
of  holiness. 

Hence  it  appears  that  the  salvation  of  infants,  while 
it  is  speciously  urged  in  defence  of  their  right  to 
church  membership,  leads  us,  in  reality,  to  a  conclusion 
directly  the  opposite.  The  argument  properly  stated 
stands  thus, — As  natund  telationship  is  of  no  aruil  in 
2)rocuiing  Jor  infants  admittance  to  heaven,  it  gives  them 
no  title  to  membership  in.  Vie  church  on  earth. 

2.  The  fallacy  of  the  objection  under  consideration 
will  appear  in  a  still  stronger  light,  if  we  consider  that 
in  the  salvation  of  infants  God  acts  as  a  Sovereign;  in 
the  recognition  of  individuals  as  raenibers  of  his  king- 
dom on  earth,  and  in  their  introduction  into  the  visible 
church,  he  recpiires  his  people  to  act  in  view  of  cer- 
tain specified  evidences.  As  in  the  Jewish  common- 
wealth it  was  necessary  that  there  should  be  satisfac- 
tory evidence  that  an  individual  possessed  the  requisite 
qualifications  for  membership,  before  he  could  be  re- 
cognized as  a  member;  so  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
But  in  the  latter  this  evidence  is  of  such  a  nature,  that 
it  cannot  possibly  exist  in  the  case  of  infants.  It  con- 
sists in  the  manifestation  of  a  spiritual  change  in  the 
character.  The  only  criterion  by  which  we  can  judge 
that  an  individual  is  regenerated,  is  that  he  "  repents 
and  believes  the  gospel."  Faith  and  repentance  are 
accordingly,  on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  this  evidence 
pertains,  indispensable  conditions  of  salvation. 

3.  Many  of  the  aigumenis  advanced  in  the  preced- 
ing sections,  are  entirely  independent  of  any  question 
pertaining  to  the  salvation  of  infants  ;  as,  for  example, 
the  proposition  that  the  only  circumcision  known 
among  christians  is  spiritual,  or  that  which  pertains  to 
the  heart;  and  that,  consequently,  the  old  Jewish  cir- 


130  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 

cumcision  is,  alike  in  form  and  substance,  abolished. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  argiunent  drawn  from  Rom.  4  : 
9-18,  to  wit,  that  the  only  relationship  to  Abraham 
recognized  by  the  gospel,  is  acquired  by  faith,  and  is 
independent,  of  the  law  of  circumcision;  and  that 
hence  no  authority  can  be  derived  from  that  law  for 
the  baptism  of  infants.  But  especially  is  this  appa- 
rent in  passages  which  appeal  to  baptism.  If  baptism 
is  to  be  administered  on  principles  which  utterly  dis- 
card all  distinctions  arising  from  birth  or  natural  de- 
scent, the  ground  on  wliich  the  baptism  of  infants  is 
practiced,  is  surely  precluded,  even  were  we  to  admit 
that  such  distinctions  will  be  regarded  in  their  sal- 
vation. 


SECTION  X. 

THE  BAPTISM  OP   BKL1EVERS  THE  EXCLUSIVK  PRACTICE  OF  THE   APOSTLES  AND 
PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIANS. — THE    TESTIMONY    OP    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

That  none  but  believers  in  Christ  are  entitled  to 
Christian  bajjtism,  is  further  evident  from  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  New  Testament  respecting  the  practice  of 
the  apostles  and  primitive  Christians.  It  is  clear  that 
they  unifortnly  required  satisfactory  evidence  of  repent- 
ance and  faith,  as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism. 

The  apostles,  in  writing  to  the  churches  which  had 
been  planted  under  their  direction,  invariably  address 
them  as  consisting  of  those  who  had  obtained  like  pre- 
cious faith  with  them.selves,  who  had  been  called  to  be 
saints,  who  were  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus.  2  Pet.  1 : 
1;  1  Cor.  1:  2.  Such  was  the  character  which  tliey 
had  professed  in  their  baptism.  The  Christians  in  the 
provinces  of  Pontus,   Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,   and 


ITS    SUBJECTS,  131 

Bithynia,  addressed  by  the  apostle  Peter,  had  submit- 
ted to  baptism  as  "  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God."  1  Pet.  1  :  1  ;  3  :  21.  The  members  of 
the  chinch  at  Ephesus  in  becoming  the  subjects  of  one 
baptism,  had,  as  we  have  previously  noticed,  acknowl- 
edged one  Lord,  and  professed  one  faith.  Eph.  4  :  5. 
The  disciples  at  Collosse  in  being  baptized,  had  signi- 
fied that  they  had  risen  with  Christ  through  faith. 
Col.  2  :  12.  Those  who  had  received  Christian  bap- 
tism at  Rome,  had  professed  to  be  dead  to  sin,  and 
alive  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ.     Rom   6:  3-11. 

In  perfect  accordance  with  this  testimony,  so  explicit 
and  decisive,  are  the  occasional  historical  allusions  to 
baptism  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  "The  Corinthi- 
ans, hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized."  The  Sa- 
maritans "  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the 
things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name 
of  Jesus  Clirist,  were  baptized  both  men  and  women." 
Chap.  18  :  8 ;  8  :  12.  See  also  chap.  8  :  37,  38 ;  10  : 
47  ;  2  :  41.  These  passages  are  sufficiently  explicit 
in  designating  the  only  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 
Had  the  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  for  example, 
baptized  the  families  or  infant  children  of  those  who 
were  converted, it  would  hardly  have  been  said  simply, 
"  Then  they  that  gladly  received  the  word ^  were  bapti- 
zed ;  and  the  same  day  there  were  added  to  them  about 
three  thousand  souls  ;  and  they  continued  steadfast.'* 
Can  any  one  read  Acts  2:  37-42;  8:  12,  and  believe 
that  there  were  infants  among  the  number  baptized? 
Is  not  such  a  supposition  hctimWy  precluded ? 

But  the  most  interesting  and  decisive  evidence  upon 
this  point,  is  derived  from  passages  which  speak  of  the 
baptism  of  households. 

It  is   perfectly  clear  that  those  belonging  to  the 


132  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

households  whose  baptism  is  recorded  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, were  not  infants,  but  persons  who  were  capa- 
ble of  acting  for  themselves,  and  who,  as  such,  had 
given  evidence  of  conversion.' 

We  first  notice  the  household  of  Lydia.  Acts  16: 
14,  15.  Lydia  is  introduced  as  a  woman  of  Thyalira, 
sojourning  at  Philippi  for  purposes  of  trade.  She  is 
represented  as  acting  for  berself,  dependent  on  no  one, 
amenable  to  no  one.  The  natural  inference,  there- 
fore, is,  that  she  had  no  husband.  But,  it  being  im- 
probable that  a  female  would  have  left  her  home,  and 
repaired  to  a  distant  city,  and  engaged  in  the  sale  of 
merchandise,  unprotected  and  alone,  we  naturally 
conclude,  upon  meeting  with  the  statement  in  verse 
14,  that  she  had  with  her  assistants  in  her  business. 
The  allusion  in  verse  15  to  her  "  household"  is,  there- 
fore, precisely  what  we  had  anticipated.  We  at  once 
refer  the  term  to  those  wbowe  had  previously  inferred 
must  have  been  engaged  as  her  assistants.  The  idea 
of  infant  children  is  not  even  suggested  to  our  minds. 
This,  we  believe,  is  the  only  natural  and  rational  view 
of  the  case.  And  in  the  absence  of  all  evidence  to 
the  contrary,  we  are  bound,  on  all  consistent  princi- 
ples of  interpretation,  to  conclude  (hat  such  were  the 
facts.  Her  household  upon  their  conversion,  would, 
of  course,  sympathize  with  her  in  her  feelings  of  chris- 
tian affection  and  hospitality;  and  this  would  operate 
as  a  reason  with  the  apostles  for  making  her  house 
their  home.  Ii  is  accordingly  said,  "  When  she  was 
baptized  and  her  household,  she  besought  us,  saying, 
If  ye  have  judged  me  faithful  to  the  Lord,  covie  into 
my  house,  and  abide  there.^^  Had  her  household  con- 
tinued opposed  to  (he  gospel,  and  addicted  to  their 
former  practices,  the  invitation  would   not  probably 


ITS      SUBJECTS.  133 

have  been  given,  much  less  accepted.  But  when  not 
only  herself,  but  her  household  avowed  themselves 
christians,  by  being'  baptized,  all  objection  in  the  minds 
of  the  apostles  to  accepting-  the  invitation,  would  be 
removed. 

We  have,  then,  sufficient  ground  for  the  conclusion 
that  the  household  of  Lydia  were  capable  of  believing 
the  gospel,  and  were  baptized  on  profession  of  their 
faith,  even  without  reference  to  the  fact  mentioned  in 
a  subsequent  verse,  to  wit,  that  the  apostles,  upon  being 
released  from  prison,  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia, 
and  when  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  comforted  them. 

Concerning  the  household  of  the  Jailor,  there  cer- 
tainly can  be  no  ground  for  dispute,  since  it  is  express- 
ly recorded,  "  And  he  rejoiced  believing  in  God  with 
ell  his  house.'' ^  Acts  16  :  31-34. 

Of  Crispus  it  is  said,  that  "  he  believed  on  the  Lord 
with  all  his  house  :^'  and  although  their  baptism  is  not 
expressly  mentioned,  it  may  safely  be  inferred;  inas- 
much as  they  are  associated  with  "  many  of  the  Corinthi- 
ans," who  "  hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized." 
Acts  18 :  8. 

Respecting  the  household  of  Stephanas  mentioned 
1  Cor.  1 :  16,  it  may  be  observed,  that  they  are  intro- 
duced as  those  who  were  interested  in  the  instructions 
of  the  apostle  to  the  church  at  Corinth,  and  in  chap. 
16  :  15, 16,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  they  were  the  first 
fruits  of  Achaia,  and  had  addicted  themselves  to  the  min- 
istry of  the  saints.^' 

It  thus  appears  that  the  households  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament  as  having  been  baptized,  consisted 
of  those  who  were  subjects  of  faith.  The  evidence 
derived  from  these  examples  is,  therefore,  entirely  in 
favor  of  believers'  baptism. 
12 


134 


CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 


It  is,  moreover,  a  fact  generally  overlooked,  that  an 
interesting  argument  may  be  drawn  from  tliis  source 
in  opposition  to  the  baptism  of  any  except  believers. 

1.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  as  often  as  the  baptism 
of  households  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
is, — with  one  exception,  where  the  fact  is  clearly  indi- 
cated b}'  the  accompanying  circumstances, — expressly 
stated,  that  they  consisted  only  of  believers.  Had  it 
simply  been  recorded  that  they  were  baptized,  we 
should  naturally  have  inferred,  that,  as  in  other  cases, 
they  had  believed.  But  the  inspired  record  has  not 
left  us  to  satisfy  ourselves  with  an  inference,  however 
well  grounded.  It  has  directly  informed  us  that  in  the 
case  of  households,  no  less  than  of  isolated  individuals, 
faith  was  required  as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism.  It 
thus  appears  from  the  express  testimony  of  the  sacred 
historian,  that  there  was  no  exception  to  baptism  on  pro- 
fession of  personal  faith,  even  in  the  only  cases  in  which 

an  exception  is  claimed. 

2.  The  members  of  these  households  are  introduced 
in  the  character  of  individual  agents,  the  subjects  of  a 
personal  and  independent  responsibility.  It  is  said,  not 
merely  that  Crispus  believed,  but  that  all  his  house 
believed  with  him.  The  members  of  his  family  are 
mentioned,  not  as  those  who  became  connected  with 
the  church  upon  his  conversion,  but  as  so  many  addi- 
tional converts  to  Christianity.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  household  of  the  jailor.  Acts  16  :  34.  Special 
notice  is  also  taken  of  the  fact,  that  when  Paul  and 
Silas  were  brought  out  of  the  prison  by  the  jailor, 
"  they  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  him,  and  to  all 
that  were  in  his  house,''  ver.  32.  They  looked  upon 
the  members  of  his  household,  whether  servants  or 
children,  as  occupying  precisely  the  same  position  in 


ITS    SUBJECTS. 


135 


respect  to  the  claims  and  privileges  of  Christianity 
with  himself.  They  were  individual  and  accountable 
agents,  whose  state  and  relationship  would  be  decided 
solely  by  their  own  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  gos- 
pel. It  is  incredible,  in  view  of  the  statement  made 
verse  32,  that  those  connected  with  the  jailor's  house- 
hold, would,  in  case  they  had  manifested  no  disposition 
to  receive  the  word,  have  been  baptized,  and  introduc- 
ed into  the  Christian  church. 

3.  The  simple  fact  that  the  baptism  of  these  house- 
holds was  deemed  worthy  of  special  record,  is  strong 
presumptive  evidence  that  household  baptism  was  not 
the  common  practice  of  the  apostles.  The  natural 
inference  is,  that  there  was  in  these  instances  some- 
thing unusual ;  that  there  was  no  custom,  to  say  the 
least,  prevalent  among  the  primitive  Christians,  from 
which  it  might  be  inferred,  that  upon  the  conversion 
of  the  head  of  a  family,  the  other  members  were 
baptized. 

The  examples  of  the  baptism  of  households  record- 
ed in  the  New  Testament,  therefore,  not  only  are  in- 
stances of  believers'  baptism,  but  they  afford  an  inter- 
esting proof  against  the  baptism  of  infants. 

The  evidence  that  infant  baptism  was  unknown 
among  the  apostles,  derived  both  from  the  Acts  and 
the  Epistles,  we  consider  perfectly  decisive.  If  as 
many  as  were  baptized  in  connexion  with  the  primi- 
tive churches,  were  supposed  to  put  on  Christ,  were 
such  as  had  gladly  received  his  word,  believed  on  his 
name,  and  risen  with  him  to  newness  of  life,  infant 
baptism  surely  was  not  practiced. 


136  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 


SECTION  XI. 

INFANT    BAPTISM    SHOWN    TO    BE    NOT   OF    APOSTOLIC    ORIGIN    FROM 
THE    HISTORY    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

The  position  establisbed  in  the  preceding  section,  is 
abundantly  sustained  by  the  history  of  baptism  subse- 
quently to  the  apostolic  age.  The  Christian  writers  of 
the  first  and  second  centuries,  in  alluding-  to  baptism, 
uniformly  speak  of  it  as  administered  on  a  voluntary 
profession  of  discipleship  to  Christ.*  Justin  Martyr, 
for  example,  describes  those  who  were  baptized  in  his 
day,  A.  D.  140,  as  persons  who  believed  the  truths  of 
Christianity,  and  promised  to  live  according  to  them. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  also,  in  his  frequent  allusions 
to  baptism,  invariably  represents  it  as  administered  to 
those  who  were  in  possession  of  faith  and  divine  illu- 
mination. The  first  writer  who  mentions  infant  bap- 
tism is  Tertullian,  about  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century.  From  his  treatise  on  Baptism,  we  learn 
that  instances  had  begun  to  occur,  in  which  "little 
children"  were  admitted  to  baptism  before  they 
had  received  a  "knowledge  of  Christ."  The  practice 
being  once  introduced,  its  spread  among  the  African 
churches,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  notices  of  it  by 
Origen  and  Cyprian,  was  somewhat  rapid  ;  although, 
as  appears  from  passages  in  the  writings  of  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Basil,  and  others, — to  some  of  which  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  refer  hereafter, — it  did  not  be- 
come general  in  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches, 
until  toward  the  close  of  the  fourth  century. 

All  attempts  to  trace  back  the  origin  of  infant  bap- 
tism beyond  the  close  of  the  second  century,  have  been 

*  Note  I.   Appendix. 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  137 

unsuccessful.  It  stands,  in  a  historical  point  of  view, 
upon  the  same  ground  as  a  multitude  of  other  supersti- 
tious customs,  which  originated  in  a  departure  from  the 
primitive  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  which  gradually 
prepared  the  way  for  the  great  apostasy. 

But,  while  there  is  nothing  in  the  early  history  of 
the  church  to  justify  the  opinion  that  infant  baptism 
is  of  apostolic  origin,  there  is  much  that  proves  con- 
clusively that  it  did  not  originate  with  the  apostles. 

1.  We  first  notice  the  lateness  of  the  period  at  which 
it  makes  its  appearance,  and  especially,  at  which  it 
became  generally  prevalent.  On  the  supposition  it 
had  been  introduced  by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  a  great 
portion  of  those  who  belonged  to  the  churches  during 
the  second  century,  as  they  were  born  of  Christian 
parents,  must  have  been  baptized  in  infancy.  How 
happens  it,  then,  that  the  writers  of  this  period,  in 
speaking  of  those  to  whom  baptism  was  administered, 
uniformly  describe  them  as  believers  1  Why  do  they 
speak  of  themselves  and  their  fellow  Christians,  with- 
out exception  or  qualification,  as  having  been  baptized 
on  profession  of  their  conscious  and  voluntary  accept- 
ance of  the  gospel  1  Why  do  they  invariably  assert  of 
the  whole,  what,  on  the  supposition,  they  knew  to  be 
true  only  of  a  part?  Or,  why  do  we  find  the  first  traces 
of  infant  baptism  in  Africa,  while  in  the  Eastern  and 
Western  churches  it  did  not  become  general  until 
moie  than  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  later?  Such  are 
precisely  the  facts  which  might  be  expected  if  infant 
baptism  be  regarded  an  innovation;  but  they  are  utterly 
irreconcilable  with  the  supposition  that  it  originated 
with  the  apostles,  and  had  all  along  been  observed  on 
their  authority. 

2.  That  infant  baptism  is  not  of  apostolic  origin  is 

12* 


138  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

further  evident  from  tlie  light  in  which  it  was  viewed 
after  its  appearance.  Oiigen,  wlio  is  the  first  writer 
that  defend^  it,  observes,  that  llie  reason  for  it  was 
matter  of  "  frequent  inquiries  among  the  brethren." 
They  evidently  did  not  understand  how  the  design  of 
baptism  could  be  met  in  its  administration  to  infants. 
As  late  as  the  time  of  Cyprian,  A.  D.  250,  it  was  un- 
decided, even  in  the  African  churches,  whether  it  were 
proper  to  baptize  a  child  before  the  eiglith  day.  Had 
infant  baptism  been  instituted  by  the  apostles,  we  see 
not  how  this  point  could  have  remained  so  long  un- 
settled. 

In  the  Eastern  churches,  at  a  much  later  period,  the 
propriety  of  baptizing  infants  was  not  generally  under- 
stood. Gregory  Nazianzen,  in  one  of  his  discourses, 
supposes  he  may  be  asked  to  express  his  opinion  on 
this  point;  and  in  reply,  he  advises  that  unconscious 
infants  be  baptized  in  cases  of  apparent  danger  ;  "  in- 
asmuch as  it  were  better  tliat  they  should  be  sanctified 
without  their  knowing  it,  than  that  they  should  die 
without  being  sealed  and  initiated."  In  other  cases 
he  advises  that  their  baptism  be  deferred  until  they  are 
of  sufficient  age  to  receive  impressions  from  a  recital 
of  the  mystical  words.  Now  on  the  supposition  that 
infant  baptism  had  been  practiced  by  the  churches  for 
more  than  three  hundred  years  on  the  authority  of  the 
apostles,  is  it  conceivable  that  the  bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople, the  metropolis  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  could 
have  regarded  his  audience  as  asking  his  opinion  re- 
specting its  propriety  1  Is  it  possible  that  he  should 
have  replied  as  he  did  ? 

About  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  Boniface, 
in  a  letter  to  Augustine,  suggests  a  variety  of  objections 
to  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants,  and  requests  a 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  139 

statement  of  the  grounds  on  which  it  may  be  justified. 
These  objections  are,  that  infants  are  incapable  of 
evincing  the  feelings  required  of  candidates  for  bap- 
tism; — that  neither  the  present  state  of  their  minds, 
nor  tlieir  future  behavior,  can  be  known  ; — that  a  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  their  behalf  is  apparently  unmeaning 
and  inconsistent  with  facts.  All  this  seems  clearly  to 
indicate  that  infant  baptism  was  an  innovation.  Bap- 
tism had  always  been  associated  with  a  profession  of 
submission  to  the  gospel.  And  how  it  could  be  prop- 
erly administered  where  such  submission  was  impossi-^ 
ble,  needed  explanation. 

3.  Another  interesting  proof  of  our  position,  is  found 
in  the  testimony  of  Tertullian.  Having  occasion  to 
allude  to  the  baptism  of  little  ones  who  had  not  yet 
acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  gospel,  he  protests  against 
it;  which  is  in  itself  a  strong  indication  that  he  looked 
upon  it  as  an  innovation.  Had  it  been  customary  to 
regard  it  as  an  apostolic  institution,  "  this  father  of 
tradition,"  as  he  is  styled  by  Mr.  Coleman  in  his 
Christian  Antiquities,  "  would  hardly  have  ventured," 
as  Neander  well  observes,  "  to  oppose  it  so  warmly." 
His  testimony,  however,  is  chiefly  valuable  on  account 
of  his  appeal  to  the  New  Testament.  He  defends  the 
ground  on  which  he  opposes  the  practice,  to  wit,  that 
the  little  ones  had  not  yet  learned  Christ,  and  could 
not  understand  why  they  were  baptized,  by  referring  to 
the  practice  of  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity,  as  re- 
corded in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  He  is  dissuading 
from  the  hasty  administration  of  baptism  ;  and  he  con- 
tends, in  opposition  to  the  arguments  of  his  opponents, 
that  in  the  instances  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  in  the  case  of  Saul,  and  of  the  Ethiopi- 
an, the  baptized  had  been  instructed  in  the  gospel,  and 


140  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

had  believed,  or,  at  least,  had  given  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  conversion.  He  endeavors  to  show  that  there 
is  no  warrant  in  the  New  Testament  for  administering 
the  ordinance  on  any  other  conditions.  "  It  is,  there- 
fore," he  adds,  "more  proper  that  baptism  should  be 
deferred  according  to  the  condition,  the  disposition,  and 
the  age  of  each  individual,  and  especially  in  the  case  of 
little  ones.^^  The  reasoning  of  Tertullian  is,  that  bap- 
tism ought  not  to  be  observed  in  any  case,  nntil  there 
is  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  candidate  is  a  sincere 
and  steadfast  christian,  and  that  hence  there  is  a  special 
impropriety  in  administering  it  to  little  children  who 
cannot  understand  its  meaning,  who  are  unacquainted 
with  Christ,  and  who,  as  they  grow  up  into  life,  may 
become  perverse  and  incorrigible.  This  he  presents  as 
the  only  position  that  can  be  maintained  on  the  au- 
thority of  the  New  Testament.  Tertullian,  then,  not 
only  opposes  infant  baptism  as  an  impropriety,  but  he 
appeals  to  the  New  Testament  and  the  practice  of  the 
first  Christians,  to  establish  the  ground  of  his  opposi- 
tion. And  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  he  makes  use  of 
precisely  the  same  argument,  as  has  been  made  most 
prominent  by  the  opposers  of  pedobaptism  in  every 
succeeding  age. 

4.  Decisive  proof  that  infant  baptism  was  unknown 
in  the  church  in  the  second  century,  is  found  in  the 
writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  and  of  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria. They  not  only  mention  believers  simply,  as  its 
subjects,  but  they  employ  language  which  clearly 
shows  that  infants  were  not  baptized.  The  state  of 
Christians  at  the  time  they  received  baptism,  is  directly 
contrasted  with  that  of  infants.* 

*  The  passages  to  which  reference  is  here  had,  will  be  found  quoted 
at  length,  and  the  argument  deduced  from  them  applied,  in  the  Chris- 
tian Review,  No.  XXII. 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  141 

Justin,  in  a  particular  account  of  the  manner  in 
which  Christians  were  baptized,  alludes  to  the  differ- 
ence in  their  state  at  the  time  of  their  birth,  and  of 
their  baptism.  Then  they  were  involuntary  and  zin- 
conscious  with  respect  to  what  they  experienced.  But 
in  their  baptism  they  had  choice  and  knowledge  and 
illumination.  Now  had  they  been  baptized  in. infancy, 
their  state  at  the  time,  instead  of  being  susceptible  of 
contrast  with  what  it  was  at  their  birth,  would  have 
been,  in  the  particulars  specified,  precisely  similar. 
They  would  have  been  as  involuntary  and  unconscious 
with  respect  to  tlieir  baptism,  as  with  respect  to  their 
birth.  Justin  is  speaking-  of  what  pertained  to  bap- 
tism as  such  ;  of  what  was,  in  profession,  at  least,  in- 
separably connected  with  the  ordinance,  as  appointed 
by  Christ,  and  observed  by  the  Christian  church.  Had 
infants  been  baptized,  they  must,  in  the  view  of  Justin, 
have  received  a  baptism  essentially  different  from  that 
which  he  describes,  and  wliich  he  represents  as  Chris- 
tian baptism.  Their  involuntarinessand  unconscious- 
ness in  their  baptism  equally  as  in  their  birth,  would 
have  been  viewed  in  direct  contrast  with  the  choice  and 
knowledge  which  he  represents  himself,  and  his  fellow 
Christians,  as  having  enjoyed,  when  baptized. 

Ecpially  explicit  and  decisive  is  the  representation 
of  Clement.  In  his  work  entitled  Pa^dagogus,  after 
explaining  on  what  grounds  christians  might,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament,  be 
properly  styled  "  children,"  he  proceeds  to  prove  in 
opposition  to  the  insinuations  of  the  Gnostics,  that  it 
was  not  on  account  of  childishness  and  simplicity  of 
knowledge.  In  proof  of  this  he  appeals  to  what  was 
implied  in  their  baptism.  Their  baptism  was  evi- 
dence, according  to  the  representation   of  Clement, 


142  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

that  they  had  been  "  illuminated"  and  made  "perfect 
in  knowledge."  They  had  received  "catechetical  in- 
struction" previously  to  their  baptism,  and  this  had  led 
to  -'faith  ;" — faith  had  been  by  the  Holy  Spirit  wrought 
in  their  hearts,  and  that  illumination,  by  which  they 
had  received  a  clear  insight  into  thvine  things,  "  con- 
summated," at  the  time  of  theii  baptism.  They  had 
thus  been  made  "perfect  christians,  wanting  nothing." 
Now  on  the  supposition  that  a  portion  of  those  of  whom 
Clement  is  speaking,  had  been  baptized  in  infancy,  the 
argument  would  have  been  directly  the  reverse.  In- 
stead of  being  unlike  children  for  the  reasons  given, 
they  would  have  been  children  in  reality,  and  children, 
too,  of  an  age  not  to  be  capable  of  instruction,  or  illumi- 
nation, or  faith,  much  less  of  maturity  or  perfection  in 
Christian  knowledge.  Clement,  then,  may  be  regard- 
ed as  affording  positive  testimony  to  the  fact,  that  infant 
baptism  did  not  prevail  at  that  period. 

5.  Another  interesting  proof  that  infant  baptism  was 
unknown  during  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  is  the 
fact,  that  those  whose  parents  were  Christians,  were 
baptized,  and  admitted  to  the  church,  on  the  same  con- 
ditions as  tiiose  converted  from  heathenism.  It  was 
necessary  that  they,  equally  with  others,  should  be 
taus:ht,  and  give  evidcmce  o(  faith,  in  order  that  they 
might  become  qualified  for  baptism. 

The  Catechiunens  of  the  second  century  were,  we 
believe  it  is  universally  admitted,  persons  in  a  course 
of  Christian  instruction  preparatory  or  prerequisite  to 
baptism.  They  differed  from  the  regular  members  of 
the  church  in  not  having  been  baptized  ;  and  hence 
they  were  not  allowed  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
In  this  class  the  children  of  Christians  equally  with 
those  from  the  ranks  of  heathenism,  were  included. 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  '  143 

The  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  after  describing  the 
catechumens, of  the  ancient  church  as  those  "  who  had 
some  title  to  the  common  name  of  Christian, — though 
not  consummated  by  baptism,"  adds, — "  The  children 
of  believing  parents  were  admitted  catechumens  as 
soon  as  ever  they  were  capable  of  instruction,  but  at 
what  age  those  born  of  heathen  parents  might  be  ad- 
mitted is  not  so  clear."  Clement,  as  we  have  already 
shown,  in  repelling  the  charge  of  the  Gnostics  that 
Christians  were  justly  styled  "  children"  on  account  of 
simplicity  in  knowledge,  alludes  to  the  fact  that  they 
had  enjoyed  catechetical  instruction  preparatory  to 
their  baptism.  As  the  charge  was  directed  against 
Christians  as  such,  those  born  of  Christian  parents,  no 
less  than  those  converted  from  lieathenism,  it  is  evi- 
dent from  the  language  of  Clement  they  had  alike 
been  instructed  in  the  principles  of  Christianity,  as 
a  prerequisite  to  baptism.  And  even  after  infants 
began  to  be  baptized,  the  usual  profession  of  knowledge 
and  faith,  demanded  of  catechumens,  was  still  requi- 
site, and  was  obtained  in  the  case  of  those  who  were 
unable  to  answer  for  themselves,  by  sponsors  testifying 
in  their  behalf; — a  clear  indication  that  the  children  of 
Christians,  equally  with  others,  had  all  along  been  re- 
garded as  belonging  to  the  order  of  catechumens. 

These  facts  prove  conclusively  that  the  earlier  Chris- 
tians knew  nothing  of  infant  baptism  and  church  mem- 
bership. It  is  evident  they  considered  faith  a  necessa- 
ry preparation  for  baptism  in  the  case  of  their  own 
children,  no  less  than  of  the  heathen.  They  acted  on 
the  principle  that  the  members  of  Christian  families, 
must,  equally  with  otherg,  be  instructed,  and  be  prop- 
erly affected  by  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  in  order  to 
become  entitled  to  baptism.     This  fact  is  interesting, 


144  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

not  only  as  decisive  proof  that  they  did  not  consider 
their  infant  chihh-en  qualified  for  baptism,  but  also  as 
sliowing  in  what  light  they  understood  the  instructions 
of  Clirist  and  his  apostles  respecting  the  necessity  of 
faith  as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism. 

6.  Another  decisive  proof  that  infant  baptism  was 
introduced  subsequently  to  the  apostolic  age,  is  found 
in  the  customs  that  were  at  first  connected  with  it. 

Boniface  in  his  letter  to  Augustine  requests  the 
reason,  that,  when  infants  are  presented  for  baptism, 
their  parents  as  sponsors  for  them,  declare  that  "  they 
do  that  of  which  their  infant  age  is  not  able  to  think;" 
— when  asked,  for  example,  '  Does  he  believe  in  God  V 
they  answer,  'He  does  believe.'  "  And  so,"  he  adds, 
"an  answer  is  returned  to  all  the  rest."  This,  as  is  evi- 
dent both  from  the  language  of  Boniface,  and  the  an- 
swer of  Augustine,  was  the  customary  and  prescribed 
usage  in  cases  of  infant  baptism.  Such  a  custom  can 
be  accounted  for  only  on  the  admission,  that  it  had 
always  been  considered  an  established  principle  that 
no  one  could  be  baptized  except  on  profession  of  faith; 
that  this  principle  had  been  settled  by  the  apostles, 
and  acted  on  by  the  church  ;  and,  as  it  could  not  be 
disregarded  or  set  aside,  an  attempt  was  made  to  main- 
tain it  even  in  infant  baptism.  Had  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants as  practiced  at  the  present  day,  been  introduced 
by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  and  established  among  the 
churches,  it  is  unaccountable  that  it  should  ever  have 
been  imagined  that  the  profession  required  of  adults, 
was  necessary  in  the  case  of  infants. 

Another  custom  connected  with  infant  baptism  from 
its  first  appearance  was  infunt  communion.  Infants 
upon  being  baptized  were  fully  constituted  members 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  145 

of  the  church,  and  were  admitted  at  once  to  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

Gieseler,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  speaking  of  the 
period,  A.  D.  193-324,  says,  "All  who  had  been  bap- 
tized, even  the  children,  partook  of  the  Eucharist." 
Vol.  I.,  p.  159. 

In  Coleman's  Christian  Antiquities,  compiled  chiefly 
from  the  works  of  Augusti.  p.  309,  it  is  stated,  "  Agree- 
ably to  all  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  church,  bap- 
tism constituted  membership  with  the  church.  All 
baptized  persons  were  legitimately  numbered  among 
the  communicants,  as  members  of  the  church.  Ac- 
cordingly the  sacrament  immediately  followed  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  that  the  members  thus  received 
might  come  at  once  into  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  christian  fellowship.  But  in  all  these 
instances  the  baptized  person  is  of  necessity  supposed 
to  have  been  of  adult  age,  capable  of  exercising  faith, 
according  to  the  injunction,  '  Believe  and  be  baptized.' 

"  After  the  general  introduction  of  infant  baptism, 
the  sacrament  continued  to  be  administered  to  all  who 
had  been  baptized,  whether  infants  or  adults.  The 
reason  assigned  by  Cyprian  and  others  for  this  practice 
was,  '  that  age  was  no  impediment ;  that  the  grace  of 
God  bestowed  on  the  subjects  of  baptism,  was  given 
without  measure  and  without  any  limitation  as  to  age.' 
Augustine  strongly  advocates  this  practice,  and  for 
authority  appeals  to  John  6:  53, 'Except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  you  have 
no  life  in  you.' 

"  The  custom  of  infant  communion  continued  for 

several  centuries.     It  is  mentioned  in  the  third  council 

of  Tours,  A.  D.  813;  and  even  the  council  of  Trent, 

A.  D.  1545,  only  decreed  that  it  should  not  be  consid- 

13 


146  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

ered  essential  to  salvation.     It  is  still  scrupulously  ob- 
served by  the  Greek  church." 

The  sacrament  continued  to  be  administered  to  all 
who  had  been  baptized,  the  same  after  as  before  the 
appearance  of  infant  baptism.  Not  the  slightest  inti- 
mation of  any  change  in  this  particular  has  been  found 
in  all  the  history  of  tlie  ancient  church.  It  was  regard- 
ed as  an  established  principle,  that  all  who  had  been 
admitted  to  baptism,  should  be  admitted  to  the  other 
ordinance.  We  should  find  it  impossible  to  account 
for  this  fact  on  tlie  supposition  that  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants had  been  instituted  by  the  apostles,  and  the  point 
that  they  were  not  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper, 
definitely  settled  by  their  authority.  It  must,  in  that 
case,  have  been  fully  understood  by  the  churches  that 
there  was  a  distinction  to  be  made  in  the  privileges  of 
thebaptixed;  that  baptism  did  noi  entitle  infants  to 
the  communion.  And  it  would  be  unaccountable,  that, 
in  such  a  state  of  things,  the  advocates  of  infant  bap- 
tism from  the  time  of  its  appearance  in  the  history  of 
the  church,  should  take  it  for  granted,  that  baptism  did 
in  aU  cases  give  a  right  to  the  other  ordinance.  It 
being  conceded  that  infants  were  not  received  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  during  the  apostolic  age,  we  believe  it  is 
impossible  to  account  for  the  introduction  of  the  prac- 
tice, on  any  other  ground  than  that  it  was  introduced 
in  connexion  with  infant  baptism  ;  and  both,  of  course, 
at  a  later  period. 

We  ask  the  reader  attentively  and  candidly  to  con- 
sider the  facts  which  have  here  been  presented,  and 
decide  whether  the  evidence  is  not  decisive,  nay  over- 
whelming, that  infant  baptism  was  unknown  in  the 
apostolic  age.  There  is  not  merely  nothing  in  the 
history  of  the  church  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  147 

was  then  practiced  ;  there  is  conclusive  proof,  arising 
from  a  variety  of  independent  sources,  that  it  had  not 
yet  been  introduced. 


SECTION  XII. 

THE    CAUSES    WHICH    LED   TO    THE     INTRODUCTION    OF     INFANT    BAP- 
TISM   EXPLAINED. 

Notwithstanding  the  facts  presented  in  the  preced- 
ing section,  the  question  is  sometimes  asked  with  an 
air  of  confidence.  If  infant  baptism  is  not  of  apostolic 
origin,  how  could  it  be  introduced  into  the  church,  and 
finally  become  prevalent  1  A  sufficient  answer  to  this 
query  is  contained  in  the  fact,  that  a  variety  of  other 
customs  whose  apostolic  origin  is  rejected,  were  in- 
troduced within  less  than  ahundred  years  after  the  apos- 
tles, and  soon  became  general.  And  there  certainly 
can  be  no  more  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  origin 
of  infant  baptism,  than  for  the  introduction  of  these 
other  anti-scriptural  customs. 

But,  apart  from  any  such  consideration,  we  are, — so 
far  from  finding  any  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  in- 
troduction of  infant  baptism, — rather  led  to  inquire, 
How  could  it  have  been  prevented  1  If  causes  which 
it  is  admitted  were  in  operation  during  the  second  cen- 
tury, had  not  led  to  it,  we  should,  indeed,  be  unable  to 
account  for  the  failure.  The  only  ground  for  surprise 
is,  that  no  traces  of  the  practice  appear  at  an  earlier 
period,  and  that  it  did  not  more  rapidly  become 
general. 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  before  the  middle  of 
the  second  century  the  opinion  began  to  prevail,  that 


148  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

baptism  was  in  some  way  efficacious  in  procuring  a 
removal  of  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  sin. 

It  is  also  admitted  that  no  age  was  specified  at  which 
children  might  be  received  into  the  number  of  cate- 
chumens. 

It  is  likewise  an  acknowledged  fact  that  the  custom 
of  having  sponsors  at  the  baptism  of  catechumens, 
was  introduced  during  the  second  century.  The  Edin- 
burgh Encyclopedia  states,  that  "  in  the  second  centu- 
ry Christians  began  to  be  divided  into  believers,  or  such 
as  were  baptized,  and  catechumens,  who  were  receiv- 
ing instruction  to  qualify  them  for  baptism.  To 
answer  for  these  persons,  sponsors  or  god  fathers  were 
first  instituted."  It  was  the  province  of  the  sponsor  to 
testify  that  in  his  opinion  the  catechumen  was  quali- 
fied for  baptism,  and  to  become  virtually  responsible 
to  the  church  for  his  future  good  behavior. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  could  hardly  fail  that 
children  of  an  early  age  would  frequently  be  pre- 
sented as  fit  subjects  for  baptism.  The  fondness  of 
parents,  especially  upon  their  imbibing  the  notion 
that  some  mysterious  saving  benefit  was  connected  with 
baptism,  would  naturally  lead  them  to  conclude, 
that  their  children  while  very  young,  were  sufliciently 
instructed  in  the  gospel,  and  impressed  with  its  truths, 
to  be  baptized  :  and  as  it  was  provided  that  they  should 
be  presented  by  sponsors,  who  testified  to  their  fitness, 
and  promised  to  watch  over  their  future  course,  so  that 
the  church  should  not  suffer  from  their  misconduct,  the 
administrator  could  have  but  little  hesitation  in  bapti- 
zing them.  These  being  admitted,  the  tendency 
would  be  to  gradually  extend  the  privilege  to  such  as 
were  still  younger ;  and  no  great  length  of  time  would 
elapse,  before,  in  special  cases  at  least,  those  just  able 
to  utter  a  few  words  of  prayer,  or  answer  a  few  simple 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  14& 

interrogations,  would  be  baptized.  It  would  then  soon 
become  a  query,  how  the  case  of  such  could  differ  in 
respect  to  any  essential  qualifications  for  baptism,  from 
that  of  mere  infants.  And  if  it  were  allowable  to 
promise  that  the  former  shoukl  grow  up  worthy  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  no  valid  objection  could  be  urged 
against  a  similar  engagement  with  respect  to  the 
latter.  We  thus  see  how  tlie  practice  of  employing 
sponsors  at  the  baptism  of  catechumens,  might,  by  a 
process  perfectly  easy  and  natural,  even  in  a  single 
generation,  lead  to  the  baptism  of  infants. 

Especially  would  such  be  the  result  wherever  the 
sentiment  became  prevalent,  that  baptism  was  admin- 
istered chiefly  for  purposes  which  would  apply  in  the 
case  of  infants,  no  less  than  of  adults.  If  it  were  to 
be  observed,  as  Origen  and  many  of  the  Fathers  of 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries  contended,  not  so  much 
to  profess  a  saving  change,  as  to  produce  it ; — not  so 
much  to  declare  a  determination  to  walk  in  newness 
of  life,  as  to  procure  the  remission  of  sins,  and  a  title 
to  heaven,  it  could  hardly  fail  that  infants  would  be 
regarded  as  proper  subjects. 

As  long  as  baptism  continued  to  be  observed  for  the 
purposes,  and  on  the  conditions,  specified  in  the  New 
Testament, — none  being  admitted  except  on  their  own 
profession  of  faith  evinced  by  its  proper  fruits, — infant 
baptism  was  unknown ;  nor  could  it,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, have  been  introduced.  But  when  the 
custom  began  to  prevail  of  baptizing  catechumens 
chiefly  on  the  testimony  and  responsibility  of  sponsors, 
and,  in  addition  to  this,  it  was  conceived,  that  the  de- 
sign and  benefits  of  baptism  were  sucli,  as  to  require 
no  distinction  to  be  made  between  infants  and  adults, 
infant  baptism  was  the  inevitable  result. 
13* 


150  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

The  introduction  of  infant  baptism  at  a  period  sub- 
sequent to  the  apostolic  age,  is  thus  easily  explained. 
Indeed,  in  view  of  the  causes,  which,  it  is  admitted, 
actually  existed,  we  see  not  how  it  could  have  been 
prevented. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  thought,  that  the  consideration  of 
this  point  is  entirely  gratuitous.  It  certainly  was  not 
demanded  by  any  just  principles  of  argumentation.  It 
might  have  sufficed,  for  every  purpose  of  rational  con- 
viction, to  have  shown,  that  there  is  no  satisfactory  evi- 
dence in  the  history  of  the  church,  that  infant  baptism 
originated  with  the  apostles.  We  supposed,  however, 
it  would  place  the  subject  in  a  still  more  interesting 
and  convincing  light,  to  present  a  few  distinct  and 
prominent  facts  directly  disproving  the  apostolic  origin 
of  the  practice.  For  the  same  reason  we  have  ad- 
vanced a  step  further,  and  have  shown  how  its  intro- 
duction at  a  later  period,  may,  as  the  natural  and 
apparently  unavoidable  result  of  existing  causes,  be 
actually  accounted  for.  We  commend  our  sugges- 
tions on  this  point  to  the  careful  and  candid  considera- 
tion of  the  reader. 


SECTION  XIII. 


A     GENERAL     AND     CONNECTED     VIEW     OF     THE     ARGUMENTS     PRE- 
SENTED  IN    THE    PRECEDING   SECTIONS. 

Our  examination  of  baptism  with  respect  to  its  sub- 
jects, is  now  completed.  The  position  that  believers 
only  are  proper  subjects,  has  been  proved  by  an  appeal 
to  the  design  of  baptism.  Not  a  use  of  the  ordinance 
specified  in  the  New  Testament,  is  met  in  its  adminis- 
tration to  unbelievers  and  infants.     Indeed,  its  design 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  151 

is  thus  directly  set  aside  and  contravened.  We  have 
appealed  to  the  nature  and  design  of  the  kingdoin  of 
Christ;  and  have  shown  that  it  is  eminently  personal 
and  spiritual  in  its  requirements,  and  qualifications  for 
membership.  It  includes  none  but  such  as  have  be- 
lieved in  Christ,  and  have  been  transformed  by  the 
renewing  of  their  minds,  and  consequently  leaves  no 
place  for  the  baptism  and  church  membership  of  in- 
fants. We  have  appealed  to  the  instructions  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  respecting  tlie  requisite  qualifications 
for  baptism  and  visible  church  membership;  and  have 
found  that  believers,  and  believers  only,  are  specified 
as  the  proper  subjects.  We  have  even  shown  by  re- 
ference to  numerous  passages  in  the  New  Testament, 
that  those  who  are  merely  "  born  of  the  liesh,"  do 
not  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ;  thai  relations 
acquired  by  natural  birth,  which  is  all  that  can  be  af- 
firmed of  infants,  are  positively  declared  to  be  of  no 
avail  as  qualifications  for  membership  ;  and  that  in  this 
respect  the  Christian  dispensation  is  directly  contrasted 
with  the  Jewish.  We  have  examined  the  testimony 
of  the  New  Testament  respecting  the  example  of  the 
apostles  and  of  the  churches  enjoying  their  instruc- 
tions ;  and  we  have  found  them  uniformly  administer- 
ing baptism  to  believers  in  Chiist  only.  Language  is 
used  which  proves  that  all  "who  were  baptized,  were 
capable  of  "  putting  on  Christ,"  and  of  "  answering  a 
good  conscience  toward  God."  We  have  also  exam- 
ined the  testimony  of  ecclesiastical  history.  We  have 
found  none  but  believers  mentioned  as  subjects  of  bap- 
tism by  the  Christian  writers  for  a  hundred  years  sub- 
sequent to  the  apostolic  age.  We  have  discovered  the 
first  traces  of  infant  baptism  about  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century,  and  have  seen  it  gradually  spread- 


152  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

ing-,  until  in  tho  limo  of  Augustine  it  became  g-eneral. 
We  Imve  shown  in  what  way  its  introduction  may  be 
readily  and  satisfactorily  accounted  for.  And  finally, 
we  have  adduced  several  distinct  and  decisive  proofs 
from  the  history  of  the  church,  against  its  apostolic 
origin. 

We  ask,  what  more  can  be  demanded  ?  What 
stronger  proof  could,  in  the  nature  of  tlie  case,  exist  1 
Every  source  from  which  an  argument  bearing  on  the 
subject,  can  possibly  be  drawn,  furnishes  evidence 
leading  invariably  to  the  same  result.  There  is  no 
conflicting  of  testimony.  There  is  no  balancing  of 
proof.  There  is  scarcely  an  occasion  for  removing  a 
difficulty.  The  evidence  derived  from  whatever 
source,  not  only  fails  entirely  of  furnishing  any  thing 
in  favor  of  the  divine  authority  of  infant  baptism  ;  but 
is  in  every  instance  opposed  to  it.  It  would  seem  suf- 
ficient for  every  practical  purpose,  to  show  that,  as  is 
admitted  by  the  advocates  of  infant  baptism  tliem- 
selves,  there  is  not  in  the  New  Testament  either  direct 
precept  or  example  to  sanction  it.  We  have  shown, 
however,  in  addition  to  this,  that  ihc  design  of  bap- 
tism, the  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  the  qualifications 
necessary  for  membership,  tlie  specified  prerequisites 
for  baptism,  the  example  of  the  apostles,  presented  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  indicated  by  the  subsequent 
history  of  the  church,  all  these,  actually  forbid  the 
practice  of  it.  They  not  merely  refuse  to  utter  a  syl- 
lable to  indicate  that  it  is  required  ;  they  combine  their 
separate  and  independent  testimony  to  declare  that  it 
is  wrong.  It  will  be  perceived,  therefore,  that  those 
who  practice  infant  baptism,  act,  not  only  Avithout  au- 
thority, but  in  direct  opposition  to  the  most  express  au- 
thority.    They  take  upon  themselves  the  responsibility 


ITS     SUBJECTS. 


153 


of  sustaining  a  practice  which  the  Head  of  the  church 
has  signified,  on  a  variety  of  independent  grounds,  is 
opposed  to  his  will.  We  ask  the  reader  if  he  is  willing 
to  bear  that  responsibility  1  If  he  is  willing,  either  by 
preceptor  example,  by  act  or  profession,  directly  or  in- 
directly, to  countenance  a  practice  which  is  so  clearly, 
not  only  unauthorized,  hxxi prohibited,  by  the  word  of 
Godi 


SECTION   XIV. 


THE    EVILS    OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 


It  does  not  directly  pertain  to  our  present  object  to 
speak  of  the  evils  resulting  from  the  practice  of  in- 
fant baptism.  In  consideration,  however,  of  the  po- 
sition assumed  in  its  defence,  a  few  remarks  upon  this 
point  may  be  desirable.  Many  of  its  advocates,  es- 
pecially the  German  authors,  while  they  admit  that  it 
is  destitute  of  scriptural  authority,  attempt  to  defend 
it  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not  without  advantages. 
Such  an  argument,  even  were  it  founded  in  fact,  ought 
to  have  no  force  with  those  who  take  the  Bible  as  their 
only  rule  of  religious  faith  and  practice.  In  the  posi- 
tive institutions  of  religion,  especially  in  its  symbolical 
ordinances,  nothing  can  be  a  reason  for  action,  but 
the  revealed  will  of  God.  Were  it  otherwise,  the 
door  would  be  open  for  the  introduction  of  every  prac- 
tice which  the  zeal  or  superstition  of  men  might  deem 
advisable.  Much  less  can  any  argument  derived  from 
the  supposed  effects  of  infant  baptism,  be  of  weight, 
against  the  accumulation  of  evidence  adduced  from 
the  New  Testament,  showing  that  the  practice  is  op- 


154 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


posed  to  the  will  of  Christ,  and  consequently  forbidden. 
While,  therefore,  no  consideration  arising  from  such  a 
source,  could  be  a  reason  for  practicing  infant  baptism, 
we  may,  however,  should  it  appear  that  its  tendency  is 
evil,  urge  the  fact  as  an  additional  reason  for  its  dis- 
continuance. It  would  be  adding  sin  to  sin,  to  counte- 
nance a  practice  which,  in  addition  to  being  opposed 
to  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  is  clearly  per- 
nicious in  its  influence. 

Whatever  temporal  purposes  may  be  served  by  in- 
fant baptism,  we  believe  it  will  be  found  that  its 
ultimate  effects  are  invariably  "  evil  and  only  evil 
continually."  To  some  of  its  evil  effects  we  briefly 
advert. 

1.  It  tends  to  exert  an  unfavorable  influence  on  the 
minds  of  those  who  have  been  the  subjects  of  it,  as 
they  grow  up  into  life.  Upon  arriving  to  years  of  un- 
derstanding, they  naturally  inquire  why  they  were 
baptized  in  infancy  ?  what  object  was  thereby  accom- 
plished ?  They  are  told,  perhaps,  that  by  this  means 
they  were  '^  regenerated,^^  "made  members  of  Christ, 
children  of  God,  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
In  other  cases  they  are  taught  tliat  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  were  thereby  seated  to  them,  and  that 
they  were  recognized  as  members  of  the  church  of 
Christ.  Now  what  is  the  legitimate  effect  of  such  in- 
struction upon  their  minds  ?  Does  it  lead  them  to  feel 
the  necessity  of  personal  faith  and  regeneration?  Does 
it  impress  upon  them  the  solemn  fact  that  their  stale 
before  God  is  determined  solely  by  their  own  accept- 
ance or  rejection  of  the  gospel  ?  The  tendency,  it  is 
obvious,  is  directly  the  reverse.  They  will  conclude, 
either  that  their  baptism  was  a  useless  ceremony,  or 
that  their  condition  is  in  some  Avay  more  favorable  than 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  155 

it  otherwise  would  be,  as  it  respects  the  salvation  of 
their  souls.  Can  they  be  easily  persuaded  that  they 
have  been  <'  made  members  of  Christ  and  children  of 
God,"  and  are  yet  "  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as 
others;" — that  they  have  been  "  regenerated,"  and 
have  become  "inheritors  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven," 
and  are  yet  without  any  title  to  a  participation  in  its  eter- 
nal blessing-s  ?  Or  will  they  readily  believe  that  an 
interest  in  the  covenant  of  g-race  is  of  no  avail  in  en- 
suring tlieir  salvation  ?  that  the  blessings  of  that  cove- 
nant have  been  "  sealed"  to  them,  and  that  yet  they 
have  no  personal  interest  in  the  enjoyment  of  them  ? 
If  the  doctrine  on  which  infant  baptism  is  predicated 
is  helieved,  the  effect  must  be  what  is  here  indicated. 
If  it  is  720^  to  he  believed,  why  is  it  taught  7  and  why  is 
the  practice  of  which  it  is  the  foundation,  continued  1 

In  many  cases,  we  know,  the  effect  indicated,  is  ac- 
tually produced.  And  although  in  communities  where 
evangelical  sentiments  are  predominant,  this  effect 
may  to  a  great  extent  be  prevented,  still  the  tendency 
of  the  practice  is  invariably  the  same  ;  and  when  left 
unrestrained  it  seldom  fails  to  work  out  its  legitimate 
and  disastrous  consequences.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
we  appeal,  in  proof  of  this,  to  the  state  of  things  exist- 
ing in  the  national  churches  of  Europe,  both  Roman- 
ist and  Protestant;  the  mass  of  whose  members  can 
give  no  other  reason  for  hoping  that  they  shall  be 
saved,  than  that  they  have  received  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  and  have  been  made  members  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  in  infancy.  It  will  suffice  that 
we  refer  to  certain  Pedobaptist  denominations  in  our 
own  country  who  in  doctrine  are  regarded  as  mainly 
evangelical,  among  w^iom  it  is  common  for  those  who 
were  christened  in  infancy,  upon  arriving  at  a  certain 


156  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

affe,  to  be  admitted  after  some  little  catechetical  in- 
struction,  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church,  as  per- 
sons who  have  fully  assumed  the  christian  character. 
Such  is  the  almost  inevitable  result,  wheie  the  re- 
straint derived  from  the  prevalence  of  evangelical 
religion,  is  removed.  Is  it  said,  that  churches  adher- 
ing to  the  doctrine  of  believers'  baptism,  may  decline 
in  spirituality,  and  be  guilty  of  admitting  unconverted 
members  ?  There  is,  however,  in  the  two  cases,  this 
essential  difference.  Baptism,  in  the  one  case,  occu- 
pies a  position  to  counteract  such  a  tendency  ;  it  pre- 
sents a  harrier  to  such  admissions  that  must  be  over- 
come, and  thus  meets  every  attempt  to  commingle  the 
church  and  the  world,  with  its  constant  and  pointed 
rebuke.  In  the  other,  it  is  itself  the  door  for  ad?nitting 
these  evils.  It  legitimately  tends  to  this  result,  and 
directly  perpetuates  it  when  produced. 

2.  Infant  baptism  tends  to  hinder  those  of  its  subjects 
who  become  converted,  from  being  themselves  baptiz- 
ed, and  from  thus  professing  their  conversion  in  the 
ordinance  appointed  for  that  purpose. 

A  large  proportion  of  the  members  belonging  to  the 
Pedobaptist  churches,  live  and  die  in  utter  disobedience 
of  the  command  enjoined  on  every  believer,  to  arise 
and  be  baptized  in  profession  of  his  faith.  In  most 
cases,  perhaps,  the  duty  is  scarcely  realized.  In  others, 
although  perceived  and  appreciated,  it  is  left  unper- 
formed. Many  a  young  convert,  as  he  has  seen  his 
companions  professing  tlieir  faith  in  Christ  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  has  felt  that  it  was  Jiard  to  be  him- 
self debarred  from  the  privilege,  simply  because,  as  he 
is  informed,  he  was  dedicated  to  God  in  his  infancy. 
Many  of  those  baptized  were,  perhaps,  in  the  prayers 
and  vows  of  their  parents,  as  really  and  as  effectually 


ITS    SUBJECTS.  157 

dedicated  to  God,  as  himself;  but  he,  in  consequence 
of  his  dedication,  must  through  life  be  denied  the  privi- 
lege of  putting  on  Christ  by  baptism.  Can  any  prac- 
tice be  innocent,  which,  however  unjustifiably,  is  actu- 
ally the  direct  cause  of  such  palpable  and  general 
disobedience  to  a  requirement  which  in  the  New 
Testament  is  identified  with  a  public  profession  of  the 
gospel ? 

3.  Baptism   administered  in  infancy  entirely   pre- 
cludes the  salutary  impression  which  the  observance 
of  the  ordinance  is  designed  to  make  on  the  mind  of  the 
subject.     Let  an  individual  in  the  exercise  of  faith 
and  true  devotion,  go  forward  and  publicly  consecrate 
himself  to  the  service  of  his  Redeemer  in  the  ordinance 
appointed  for  that  purpose,  and  the  impression  made 
on  his  mind  will  be  eminently  salutary  and  abiding. 
He  will  frequently  revert  to  the  scene  with  pleasure 
and  profit  in  future  life.     As  often  as  he  sees  the  ordi- 
nance administered,  the  feelings  which  he  possessed  at 
his  own  baptism,  will  be  renewed  and  strengthened. 
But  in  the  case  of  those  baptized  in  infancy,  all  this 
benefit,  these  salutary  impressions,  these    delightful 
recollections,  are  lost.     This  fact  is  forcibly  expressed 
in  a  passage  occurring  in  the  devotional  works  of  Arch- 
bishop Leighton.     "  Baptism  being  but  once  adminis- 
tered, and  that  in  infancy,  is  very  seldom  and  slightly 
considered  by  many,  even  real  christians.     And  so  we 
are  at  a  loss  in  that  profit  and  comfort,  that  increase  in 
both  holiness  and  faith,  which  the  frequent  recollecting 
of  it  after  a  spiritual  manner,  would  no  doubt  advance 
in  us."     The  only  remedy  of  this  evil  is  the  abandon- 
ment of  infant  baptism,  and  the  adoption  of  the  scrip- 
tural practice  of  baptizing  those  only  who  give  evi- 
dence that  they  are  savingly  interested  in  the  gospel. 
14 


158  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

4.  Infant  baptism  tendsto annihilate  thelineofdemar- 
kation  between  the  churcli  and  the  world.  The  doctrine 
of  pedobaptism  is,  either  that  infants  are  born  members 
of  the  church  and  are  to  be  baptized  in  recognition  of 
that  relationship,  or  tliat  in  baptism  they  are  introduc- 
ed into  the  church.  Their  connection,  of  course, 
continues  the  same  as  they  advance  in  life ;  and  con- 
sistency requires  that  they  should  be  admitted  to  the 
privileges  to  which  their  mcmbeiship  properly  entitles 
them.  In  most  Pedobaptist  churches  this  is  done 
without  hesitation.  In  the  Greek  church,  infants  are 
admitted  to  the  Eucharist  immediately  on  their  bap- 
tism. In  most  of  the  churches  of  Europe  and  some  in 
America,  this  is  deferred  until  they  have  received  an 
amount  of  catechetical  instruction,  and  have  under- 
gone some  process  of  confirmation.  The  ground  on 
which  they  are  admitted,  is,  however,  in  both  cases 
essentially  the  same, — they  are  members  of  the  church, 
and,  consequently,  ought  not  to  be  denied  its  privi- 
leges. The  church  is  thus  filled  with  worldly  uncon- 
verted members,  and  the  line  of  demarkation  estab- 
lished by  Christ  is  ultimately  removed.  And  although 
in  evangelical  churches,  as  was  observed  with  respect 
to  a  kindred  evil,  this  influence  may  to  a  great  extent 
be  counteracted,  its  tendency  is,  nevertheless,  in  all 
cases  the  same ;  and  it  only  requires  a  change  of  cir- 
cumstances, as  has  been  evinced  in  numerous  instances 
both  in  Europe  and  America,  for  it  actually  to  produce 
the  same  effects.  We  ask  the  reader  to  look  at  the 
state  of  most  churches  in  Christendom  where  infant 
baptism  prevails,  and  mark  the  process  by  which  they 
have  been  brought  into  that  state  j  and  will  it  be 
denied  that  the  legitimate  influence  of  infant  baptism 
is  evil  ? 


ITS     SUBJECTS.  159 

5.  Another  evil  connected  with  infant  baptism  is  the 
countenance  it  gives  to  other  anti-scriptural  practices. 
As  it  becomes  necessary  to  rest  its  defence  on  other 
grounds  than  the  express  sanction  of  the  word  of  God, 
the  great  Protestant  principle  that  the  Bible  is  the  only- 
rule  of  religious  faith  and  practice,  is  practically  set 
aside,  and  the  door  is  opened  for  the  introduction  and 
defence  of  every  religious  observance  which  the  fancy 
or  superstition  of  men  may  deem  expedient.  The  ar- 
guments  which  Protestants  are  accustomed  to  urge 
against  the  church  of  Rome  are  thus  deprived  of  half 
their  force.  We  verily  believe  that  one  of  the  great- 
est obstacles  to  success  in  the  efforts  made  to  arrest  the 
progress,  and  counteract  the  influence  of  Romanism  in 
this  country,  lies  in  the  adherence  to  pedobaptism  on 
the  part  of  Protestant  churches. 

We  leave  these  facts  for  the  candid  consideration  of 
the  reader.  We  have  adduced  them,  partly  to  refute 
the  position  that  infant  baptism,  if  not  sanctioned  by 
scriptural  authority,  is,  at  least,  a  useful  institution, 
and,  partly,  as  additional  reasons  for  the  immediate 
discontinuance  of  a  practice,  which  we  had  before 
proved  by  an  overwhelming  amount  of  evidence,  to  be 
unauthorized,  and  even  forbidden,  by  the  word  of  God. 
To  admit  to  baptism,  and  introduce  into  the  church, 
those  who  are,  as  the  Master  himself  has  expressly 
taught  us,  unfit  subjects,  is  daring  presumption. 
But  to  do  it  at  the  hazard  of  encouraging  the  unre- 
generate  to  believe  that  they  are  interested  in  the 
covenant  of  grace,  of  causing  christians  to  neglect  a 
prominent  injunction  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to 
fail  of  securing  the  benefits  connected. with  obedience, 
of  annihilating  the  line  of  demarkation  which  Christ 
has  established  between  his  church  and  the  world,  and 


160  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

of  preparing  the  way  for  the  more  rapid  spread  of  anti- 
scriptural  and  superstitious  views  and  practices,  is  a 
fearful  aggravation  of  the  offence.  Did  evangelical 
Pedobaptists  generally  view  this  subject  in  its  true 
light,  they  would,  we  are  satisfied,  shrink  from  the  re- 
sponsibility of  countenancing  a  custom  which  in  addi- 
tion to  being  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  is  attended  with  so  many  serious  and  far 
reaching  evils. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    AUTHORITY    OF    BAPTISM, 


THE  DUTY  OF    BELIEVERS    IN    CHRIST    TO    BE    BAPTIZED  ON  PROFESSION 
OF   THEIR    FAITH. 

The  design  of  baptism  indicates  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  all  who  believe  in  Christ  to  be  baptized  on  profession 
of  their  faith.  Is  a  public  profession  of  discipleship 
required  of  all  who  would  follow  Christ  ?  and  is  bap- 
tism, as  we  have  shown,  the  means  which  he  has  ap- 
pointed for  making  this  profession  ?  The  former  re- 
quisition, of  course,  implies  the  latter.  Was  baptism 
instituted  as  a  visible  line  of  demarkation  between  the 
people  of  God  and  the  world  ?  and  is  it  the  duty  of  the 
former  to  come  out  from  the  world  and  be  separate  ? 
Their  duty  to  be  baptized  is  necessarily  involved.  Are 
they  under  obligation  to  identify  themselves  with  the 
church  of  Christ  1  This  can  properly  be  done  only  by 
observing  the  appointed  rite  of  initiation.  Is  baptism 
a  symbolical  ordinance  1  It  is  certainly  befitting  that 
it  be  observed  by  all  who  have  experienced  the  thing 
signified.  Such  was  obviously  the  intention  of  its 
Divine  Author  in  its  institution. 

The  appeals  which  are  made  in  the  New  Testament 
to  the  design  and  significancy  of  baptism  clearly  indi- 
cate that  the  ordinance  is  one  of  which  every  christian 
should  be  the  subject.  He  should  appear  before  the 
world  as  one  who  is  "  dead  with  Christ,"  having  been 
14* 


162  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

in  baptism  "  buried  with  him  ;"  as  one  who  has  enter- 
ed upon  a  new  life,  having  been  emblematically  raised 
up  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection."  Christ  has  de- 
signated his  people  "  the  light  of  the  world:"  and  he 
designs  that  the  great  truths  by  which  the  world  is 
especially  to  be  benefited,  shall  appear  conspicuous  in 
their  very  profession,  in  the  character  which  they 
assume,  and  by  which  they  are  known,  as  his  disciples. 
Hence  their  obligation  to  identify  with  their  character 
the  significancy  of  the  appointed  ordinance  of  christian 
profession,  in  which  these  trutbs  are  emblematically 
exhibited. 

The  duty  of  christians  to  be  baptized  in  profession  of 
their  faith,  is  further  evident  from  the  express  injunc- 
tions of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  His  final  commission 
to  his  disciples  was,  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and  disciple  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you ;  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  luorld"  Mat.  28  :  19,  20.  This  language 
implies  that  to  the  end  of  time  it  will  be  obligatory  on 
those  who  become  disciples,  to  submit  to  baptism. 
Otherwise,  the  commission  cannot  be  fulfilled.  It  is 
accordingly  added,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved,"  Mark  16 :  16 ;  the  duty  of  baptism 
being  thus  represented  as  co-extensive  with  the  exercise 
of  faith.  Hence  we  find  Peter  enjoining  on  the  mul- 
titudes at  Pentecost,  "Repent,  and  be  baptized  every 
oneofyouin  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  As  it  was  the 
duly  of  all  to  repent,  so  upon  their  repentance  it  would 
be  incumbent  on  them,  "every  one,"  to  be  baptized. 
The  same  thing  is  taken. for  granted  in  the  address  of 
Ananias  to   Saul,   "And  now,   why   tarriest  thou? 


ITS    AUTHORITY.  163 

Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

We  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  by  considering  the 
examples  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  apostles  appear  to  have  uniformly  acted  on  the 
principle  that  it  was  the  duty  of  those  who  believed  to 
be  baptized.  Those  who  at  Pentecost  "  gladly  receiv- 
ed the  word,"  did  not  consider  it  optional  with  them 
whether  they  should  observe  or  neglect  the  ordinance. 
They  had  been  taught  to  regard  it  as  a  duty ;  and  they 
submitted  to  it  as  such  without  hesitation.  The  Sa- 
maritans, "  when  they  believed, — were  baptized  both 
men  and  women."  The  Corinthians,  hearing,  believ- 
ed, and  were  baptized."  See  also  Acts  8 :  35-39  ; 
10 :  48 ;  16 :  14,  15,  30-34 ;  19  :  1-5.  We  believe 
no  one  can  attentively  read  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
without  receiving  the  settled  conviction  that  the  prim- 
itive teachers  of  Christionity,  considered  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  obligatory  on  all  who  embraced  the  gospel. 
The  repeated  allusions  to  baptism  in  the  Epistles,  like- 
wise, clearly  imply  that  the  members  of  the  apostolic 
churches  had,  in  being  baptized,  complied  with  a  gos- 
pel requirement.  1  Cor.  1 :  13-16  ;  Gal.  3  :  27  ;  Eph. 
4:5;  Col.  2  :  12  ;  etc. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  we  see  the  propriety  of 
the  description  of  baptism  given  by  the  apostle  Peter, 
as  "  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God ;" — an 
express  implication  that  obedience  to  the  dictates  of  a 
conscience  purified  by  faith,  and  enlightened  by  the 
word  of  God,  will  lead  to  the  observance  of  the  ordi- 
nance. Let  such  a  conscience  exert  its  proper  author- 
ity among  all  the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  they  would 
be  impelled  with  one  accord  to  "  arise  and  be  bapti- 
zed."    It  becomes,  then,  an  important  inquiry,  Why 


164  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 

are  they  so  generally  found  neglecting  the  duty?  To 
a  consideration  of  some  of  the  reasons  assigned  for  this 
neglect,  we  now  invite  the  reader's  candid  attention. 

1.  It  is  frequently  urged  that  baptism  is  not  essential 
to  salvation,  and  that  if  the  thing  signified  is  secured, 
all  else  is  of  little  account.  Our  first  remark  respecting 
this  excuse  will  relate  to  its  extreme  selfishness.  The 
individual  supposed  hopes  that  his  sins  have  been  for- 
given, that  his  heart  has  been  renewed,  that  he  has 
obtained  a  title  to  heaven  ;  and  he  is  required  to  pro- 
fess the  change  which  he  has  experienced,  and  his 
obligation  to  its  gracious  Author,  by  being  baptized. 
But  he  replies,  "  This  surely  is  not  necessary.  I  am 
in  possession,  I  trust,  of  the  '  one  thing  needful.'  I 
have  a  comfortable  evidence  that  my  name  is  written 
in  heaven.  And  why  should  I  be  further  concerned 
about  the  requisitions  of  the  gospel "?"  Such  surely 
are  not  the  dictates  of  piety.  Indulgence  in  such  a 
spirit  would  soon  lead  to  a  neglect  of  all  the  external 
duties  of  religion. 

The  fact  that  baptism  is  not  in  itself  essential  to  sal- 
vation, does  not  set  aside  the  necessity  of  a  disposition 
to  obey  Christ.  A  "  good  conscience,"  or  a  conscien- 
tious regard  for  the  will  of  God,  such  as  was  anciently 
"  answered"  in  baptism,  cannot  be  too  scrupulously 
preserved.  Hazardous,  indeed,  is  the  inchilgence  of  an 
impression  that  the  spirit  of  obedience  implied  in  the 
declaration,  "He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved,"  and  the  wilful  neglect  of  a  plain  scriptural 
command,  will  aflfect  alike  our  spiritual  interests. 

2.  Another  excuse  for  refusing  to  profess  faith  in 
Christ  in  the  ordinance  which  he  has  appointed  for 
that  purpose,  is,  that  the  requisite  profession  has  been 
made  by  the  observance  of  another  rite  of  somewhat  sim- 


ITS     AUTHORITY.  165 

liar  import.  This  excuse,  if  not  presented  in  the  pre- 
cise form  in  which  it  is  here  slated,  is,  nevertheless,  in 
fact,  the  ground  on  which  multitudes  in  Pedobaptist 
churches,  attempt  to  justify  their  neglect  of  baptism. 
That  they  have  been  immersed  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  in  accordance  with  the  simple  meaning  of  the 
word  baptize, and  theinvariablepracticeof  the  primitive 
Christians,  they  do  not  pretend.  That  they  have  sym- 
bolically declared  their  spiritual  conformity  to  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  by  being  "buried 
with  him  in  baptism,"  they  do  not  claim.  That  they 
have  signified  the  washing  away  of  their  sins  by  being 
bathed  in  the  cleansing  element,  they  cannot  affirm. 
But  they  have  observed  a  rite  which  bears  a  resem- 
blance to  certain  ceremonies,  which  under  the  Mosaic 
law  were  significant  of  purification.  In  the  use  of  this 
they  have  professed  faith  in  Christ;  and  they  endeavor 
to  persuade  themselves  that  this  will  suffice.  Show 
them  that  this  is  not  submission  to  the  ordinance  ap- 
pointed by  Christ ;  and  they  reply,  that  it  will,  at 
least,  answer  the  same  purpose. 

This  excuse  involves  the  principle  that  those  to 
whom  the  positive  institutions  of  the  gospel  are  given, 
are  at  liberty  to  change  them  at  pleasure,  or  to  set 
them  aside  in  favor  of  the  inventions  of  men.  The 
recklessness  and  inconsistency  of  such  a  position  have 
been  fully  illustrated  in  the  preceding  sections.  It 
provides  that  any  ceremony  whatever,  in  case  it  be  in 
some  way  significant  of  the  facts  represented  by  a  gos- 
pel ordinance,  may  be  substituted  in  its  place. 

Let  us, — applying  to  the  present  case  the  illustration 
introduced  in  a  former  section, — let  us  suppose  that  the 
members  of  a  church  assemble  professedly  to  celebrate 
the  Lord's  Supper.     The  bread  and  wine  are  exhibited 


166  CHRISTIAN      BAPTISM. 

to  their  view.  The  one  is  broken,  and  distributed 
among  them ;  and  they  are  invited  to  look  through 
the  emblem  to  tlie  sacrifice  of  Christ,  as  the  ground  of 
their  salvation.  The  other  is  poured  forth,  as  a  sym- 
bol of  that  on  which  they  depend  for  the  remission  of 
their  sins.  They  call  this  "  the  breaking  of  bread," 
"  the  communion,"  "  the  Lord's  Supper ;"  and  claim 
to  have  answered  the  design  of  the  ordinance,  so 
called,  appointed  by  Christ.  Can  any  one  persuade 
himself  that  the  injunctions,  "  Take  eaf," — '^  Drink 
ye  all  of  it,"  would  be  obeyed  in  such  a  transaction? 
The  case  is  similar  with  respect  to  baptism  ; — with  this 
important  difference,  however,  that  the  ordinance  in- 
stead of  being  simply  abridged,  is  entirely  set  aside, 
and  another  lite  observed  in  its  stead.  The  injunction 
is,  as  the  word  employed  properly  and  incontrovertibly 
signifies.  Be  immersed.  As  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  de- 
finite act  is  enjoined,  and  nothing  but  the  performance 
of  that  act,  is  obedience.  Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten,  that 
the  significancy  of  the  ordinance  is,  in  the  one  case,  no 
less  than  in  the  other,  inseparable  from  the  act  re- 
quired. 

3.  Another  excuse  urged  by  multitudes  for  neglecting 
to  obey  the  requirement  to  be  baptized,  is  the  fact  that 
the  rite,  or  one  called  hy  the  same  name,  has  been  observed 
by  others  in  their  behalf.  In  infancy  they  were  the 
passive  subjects  of  a  ceremony  of  religious  dedication. 
The  transaction,  as  far  as  it  was,  not  merely  a  moral,  or 
voluntary,  or  conscious  act,  but  an  act  at  all,  was  not 
their  own,  but  that  of  their  parents  or  sponsors.  This 
act,  for  which  others  alone  were  responsible,  of  which 
others  alone  were  the  agents,  they  consider  a  sufficient 
reason  for  neglecting  themselves  to  obey  the  com- 
mand which  Christ  has  enjoined  on  all  his  followers, 


ITS     AUTHORITY.  167 

and  in  obeying  which  they  are  to  make  a  profession  of 
their  discipleship.  A  simple  statement  of  the  case,  is 
sufficient  to  expose  the  utter  weakness  and  folly  of  the 
excuse. 

Even  were  it  conceded  that  it  is  the  privilege  of 
parents  to  observe  baptism  in  behalf  of  their  children, 
the  obligation  of  the  latter  to  be  baptized  upon  embra- 
cing the  gospel,  would  not  he  in  the  least  diminished. 
The  command  is  addressed  to  them  as  individual  and 
responsible  agents  :  and  if  they  are  conscious  that  they 
have  never  obeyed  it,  it  is  folly  to  imagine  that  any  act 
of  their  parents  will  excuse  their  disobedience. 

We  are  aware  that  an  attempt  is  made  to  defend  the 
principle  involved  in  the  practice  of  infant  baptism,  by 
appealing  to  the  regulations  respecting  circumcision. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  the  command  re- 
quiring the  observance  of  this  rite  on  the  eighth  day, 
was  given,  not  to  the  children,  but  to  the  parents.  It 
was  their  duty  to  see  that  it  was  properly  performed. 
Gen.  17  :  10-14 ;  Lev.  12  :  3  ;  John  7  :  22,  23.  There 
was  a  sufficient  reason  for  this  in  the  nature  of  the 
Jewish  economy.  In  a  dispensation  which  had  respect 
to  a  nation  as  such,  it  was  important  that  the  members 
of  that  nation  should,  even  from  their  earliest  infancy, 
be  kept  distinct  from  the  rest  of  mankind.  The  per- 
formance of  circumcision  the  appointed  badge  of  na- 
tionality, was  like  placing  the  name  of  the  child  on 
the  public  records.  But  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
where  a  title  to  membership  is  evinced,  not  by  natural 
descent,  but  solely  by  a  change  of  character,  a  disposi- 
tion to  walk  in  newness  of  life,  not  only  is  there  a  man- 
ifest impropriety  in  applying  the  rite  of  recognition  to 
infants,  in  whom  the  evidence  of  possessing  these  qual- 
ifications is  entirely  wanting,  but  it  is  appropriate  that 
this  change,  this  voluntary  entrance  upon  a  new  life. 


168  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

should  be  signified  by  those  by  whom  it  is  experienced. 
Baptism  partakes  of  the  nature  of  an  oath  of  allegi- 
ance, and,  as  in  civil  law,  is  required  of  those  to  whom 
it  is  intended  to  apply.  It  is,  as  we  have  fully  shown, 
uniformly  represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  the 
individual  duty  of  those  who  become  the  subjects  of  it. 
It  cannot,  of  course,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  per- 
formed by  others  in  their  stead. 

We  can  no  more  be  released  from  our  obligation  to 
obedience  in  respect  to  baptism,  in  consequence  of 
what  others  may  have  done  for  us,  than  in  respect  to 
any  other  religious  duty.  With  the  word  of  God  be- 
fore us,  we  feel  that  it  is  our  duty  to  pray,  however 
numerous  may  have  been  the  prayers  offered  in  our 
behalf;  that  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  consecrate  our- 
selves to  God,  although  we  may  have  been  the  sub- 
jects of  a  dedication  by  our  parents;  that  we  are  under 
obligation  to  renounce  the  world  and  the  sinful  lusts  of 
the  flesh,  notwithstanding  this  renunciation  may  have 
been  made  by  others  in  our  stead  and  name.  All  this, 
we  feel,  does  not,  cannot  affect  our  duty  in  these  re- 
spects. And  why  should  it  be  otherwise  in  respect  to 
baptism  1 

But  the  fallacy  of  the  excuse  under  consideration, 
will  appear  in  a  still  more  convincing  light,  if  it  be 
remembered  that  baptism  is  the  appointed  means  of 
making  a  public  profession  of  the  gospel.  That  a 
command  addressed  to  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  to 
be  baptized  in  his  name  or  as  his  disciples,  should  be 
obeyed  by  acts  performed  without  their  concurrence, 
or  even  knowledge,  is  in  itself  sufficiently  incredible. 
But  it  is,  if  possible,  still  more  incredible  that  any  such 
act  should  be  obedience,  while  the  very  design  of  the 
ordinance  entirely  fails  of  being  thereby  fulfilled.     If 


ITS   AUTHORITY.  169 

baptism  is  what  it  is,  even  in  Pedobaptist  confessions 
of  faith,  admitted  to  be,  a  sig-nto  the  party  baptized,  of 
*'  his  giving  up  unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ  to  walk 
in  newness  of  life  ;"  it  is  obvious  the  evidence  of  this 
change  must  appear,  before  the  rite  can  be  properly- 
observed.  Its  validity  depends  on  its  being  performed 
for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  instituted.  There 
must  be  on  the  part  of  the  subject  a  profession  that  he 
has  repented  of  his  sins,  and  embraced  the  gospel,  or 
there  is  no  obedience. 

An  example  strikingly  illustrative  of  this  position  is 
furnished  in  the  case  of  the  twelve  men  mentioned 
Acts  19  :  1-7.  They  had  been  baptized  unto  what  was 
called  "  John's  baptism."  This  had  been  done,  as  is 
evident  from  several  circumstances,  subsequently  to  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  season  of  Pentecost;* 
and  probably  while  Apollos  was  at  Ephesus.  Comp. 
chap.  18:  24,25;  19:  1.  They  had  not,  therefore,  been 
baptized  into  the  faith  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  either 
as  yet  to  come,  or  as  having  already  appeared.  And 
hence  upon  being  instructed  in  the  truth  respecting 
his  character  and  claims,  and  embracing  it,  they  were 
baptized  in  his  name.  They  had  no  scruples  about 
being  rebaptized.  Their  former  baptism  had  not  ful- 
filled the  design  of  the  ordinance  appointed  by  Christ, 
and  they  considered  it  null.  They  had  made  no  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  Him  on  whom  John  taught  "  the 
people,  that  they  should  believe ;"  and  hence  by  the 
direction  of  the  apostle  they  were  rebaptized. 

With  how  much  greater  force  do  the  same  reasons 
for  baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ,  apply  in  the  case  of 
those  who  may  have  been  baptized  in  infancy.  They 
were  ignorant,  not  merely  of  the  import  of  the  trans- 

*  Note  J.  Appendix. 

15 


170  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

action,  but  of  its  performance.  They  not  only  did  not 
profess  faith  in  the  true  Messiah  ;  they  made  no  pro- 
fession whatever.  They  were  not  only  not  baptized 
as  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  they  were  incapa- 
ble of  becoming-  disciples.  If  then  the  twelve  men  at 
Ephesus  were,  for  the  reasons  suggested,  rebaptized, 
the  subjects  of  infant  baptism  ought  not,  surely,  to 
hesitate  to  follow  their  example.  This  we  say  on  the 
assumption  that,  like  the  former,  they  have  once  sub- 
mitted to  baptism.  Such,  however,  as  we  have  shown, 
is  not  the  fact.  Their  baptism,  as  far  as  personal  ac- 
countability or  agency  is  involved,  would  be  in  no 
sense  rebaptism.  In  some  Pedobaptist  denominations 
at  the  baptism  of  infants,  a  renunciation  of  the  world 
and  of  the  sinful  desires  of  the  flesh,  is  publicly  pro- 
fessed in  their  behalf,  and  in  their  name,  by  those  who 
stand  as  their  sponsors.  This,  however,  does  not  ex- 
pose them  to  the  liability  of  making  a  formal  profes- 
sion of  religion  the  second  time.  They  ordinarily, 
upon  arriving  to  years  of  discretion,  have  no  fears  on 
this  point.  They  know  that  they  have  never  made 
any  such  profession.  For  the  same  reason  they  know 
that  they  have  never  performed  any  act  that  can  be 
called  baptism ;  and  hence  it  is  not  possible  that  as 
responsible  agents  they  should  be  rebaptized.  The 
command  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  cannot, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  obeyed  by  a  transaction  in 
which  there  is,  not  merely  no  profession,  but  no  re- 
sponsibility, no  agency,  no  knowledge,  on  the  part  of 
the  subject.  And  yet  on  the  ground  that  such  a  trans- 
action will  suffice,  multitudes  in  Christian  lands  who 
give  evidence  of  piety,  attempt  to  justify  themselves 
in  neglecting  to  obey  that  command,  and  even  in  en- 
couraging the  same  neglect  on  the  part  of  others.    We 


ITS    AUTHORITY.  171 

believe,  however,  the  time  is  approaching  when  such 
an  excuse  will  cease  to  be  urged  ;  when  the  acts  of 
others  will  no  longer  be  plead  in  justification  of  per- 
sonal disobedience  ;  when  the  spontaneous  inquiry  of 
the  converted  will  individually  be,  "  What  doth  hinder 
me  to  be  baptized  ?"  and  they  will  esteem  it  alike  a 
duty  and  a  privilege  to  be  immersed  in  imitation  of  the 
example  of  their  Lord,  and  in  the  likeness  of  his  death 
and  resurrection,  and  thus  to  take  upon  themselves  the 
appropriate,  the  appointed  badge  of  discipleship. 


CHAPTER  V.  '^ 

THE   RELATIVE   POSrTION    OF   BAPTISM, 
oa 

THE  SCRIPTURAL  TERMS   OF   ADMISSION   TO    THE   LORd's    SUPPER. 

We  proceed  to  inquire,  What  is  the  relative  posi- 
tion OF  baptism,  particularly  with  reference  to  the 
Lord's  supper  1  That  the  former  is  properly  a  pre- 
requisite to  the  latter,  is  obvious  from  their  design. 

Baptism  being  the  instituted  means  of  professing  an 
interest  in  the  gospel,  is  naturally  the  Jirst  definite 
public  act  requiied  of  those  who  become  christians. 
And  while  living  in  the  neglect  of  this,  on  what  ground 
can  they  consistently  seek  admission  to  the  Lord's  sup- 
per ?  Are  they,  in  wishing  to  observe  the  latter  ordi- 
nance, influenced  by  a  spirit  of  obedience  to  Christ  1 
Why  should  not  the  same  spirit  lead  them  to  the  per- 
formance of  the  previous  duty,  equally  plain,  equally 
imperative,  equally  important'?  An  unwillingness  to 
obey  Christ  in  one  of  his  requirements,  and  especially 
one  occupying  the  place  of  baptism,  is  certainly  not 
the  most  suitable  spirit  for  engaging  in  the  discharge 
of  some  subsequent  duty  ;  and  least  of  all,  for  celebra- 
ting an  ordinance  in  which  the  observants  are  supposed 
expressly  to  signify  their  indebtedness  to  him  for  sal- 
vation, and  their  consequent  obligation  to  yield  him 
their  unreserved  obedience.  The  inconsistency  of  de- 
siring a  seat  at  the  communion  table,  while  the  ordin- 
ance of  baptism  is  overlooked  or  disregarded,  would 


ITS   RELATIVE    POSITION.  173 

seem  to  be  too  obvious,  not  to  be  generally  felt  and  ac- 
knowledged. 

Tiiese  suggestions  naturally  lead  to  the  inquiry,  To 
whom  shall  the  invitation  to  unite  in  celebrating  the 
Lord's  supper  be  extended  ?  It  will  doubtless  be  gen- 
erally conceded  that  the  nature  and  design  of  the  or- 
dinance are  such,  that  one  thing  demanded  of  those 
who  are  invited,  should  be  that  they  have  made  some 
profession  of  Christianity.  What  then  shall  churches 
in  applying  this  general  principle,  acknowledge  as  a 
suitable  or  sufficient  profession  ?  Shall  they  take  the 
ground  that  the  manner  of  professing  an  interest  in  the 
gospel  is  immaterial ;  that  any  mode  of  profession, 
public  or  private,  formal  or  informal,  ritual  or  verbal, 
orthodox  or  heretical,  will  suffice  '?  Or  shall  they  adopt 
certain  restrictions  or  requisitions  of  their  own  devising, 
suggested  by  a  reference  to  their  own  feelings  or  con- 
venience ?  Or  shall  they,  as  the  only  alternative,  in 
their  acts  as  churches,  require  the  profession  appointed 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  uniformly  observed  by  the 
primitive  christians  as  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God  ?  Their  duty  in  this  case  must,  we  think, 
be  too  obvious  to  be  easily  mistaken. 

But  it  was  the  design  of  Christ  that  the  profession 
made  in  baptism  should  be  conjoined  with  the  act  of 
becoming  identified  with  the  interests  of  his  church. 
It  is  on  this  condition  alone  that  the  ordinance  can 
fully  answer  the  end  for  which  it  was  instituted,  as  a 
visible  line  of  demarkation  between  the  people  of  God 
and  the  world.  Hence  baptism  may  be  regarded  a 
prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  supper,  especially,  as  being 
the  appointed  rite  of  initiation  into  the  visible  church  ;  or 
that  which,  although  it  does  not  in  itself  constitute  any 
one  a  church  member,  is  the  only  door  by  which  the 
15* 


174  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

church  can  properly  receive  individuals  to  membership* 
The  Lord's  supper,  as  is  apparent  from  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  apostolic  teachings,  especially  from  1  Cor. 
11 :  20-34  ;  10  :  16,  17,  is  strictly  a  church  ordinance. 
In  primitive  times  those  ^who  were  baptized,  were 
*'  added  to  the  church."  They  thus  became  subject 
to  all  the  regulations  of  the  church,  and  entitled  to  all 
its  privileges,  among  which  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  supi^er  was  prominent.  Acts  2  :  41,  42,  47  :  1 
Cor.  1  :  13;  11  :  20-34.  Wliile  baptism,  therefore,  is 
a  prerequisite  to  church  membership,  church  membership 
is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lordh  supper.  We  have  no 
warrant  from  the  New  Testament  for  receiving  to  the 
Lord's  table  any  who  have  not  been  baptized,  and  ad- 
mitted to  membership  in  the  church. 

Such  being  the  principle  of  action  with  reference  to 
the  observance  of  the  Lord's  supper,  established  by  the 
apostles,  and  recognized  in  the  New  Testament,  we 
find  that  it  was  tenaciously  adhered  to  by  the  Chris- 
tians in  succeeding  ages.  As,  on  the  one  hand,  none 
were  baptized  but  such  as  became  members  of  the 
church,  so,  on  the  other,  none  were  received  to  mem- 
bership in  the  church,  or  admitted  to  its  peculiar  priv- 
ileges, without  being  baptized.  Justin  Martyr,  speak- 
ing of  the  Supper,  says,  "This  food  is  called  by  us  the 
Eucharist ;  of  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  to  partake, 
but  such  as  believe  the  things  taught  by  us  to  be  true, 
and  have  been  baptized."  "It  is  certain,"  says  Dr. 
Doddridge,  "  that  Christians  in  general,  have  always 
been  spoken  of,  by  the  most  ancient  Fathers,  as  bapti- 
zed persons.  And  it  is  also  certain  that,  as  far  as  our 
knowledge  of  primitive  antiquity  extends,  no  unbapti- 
zed  person  received  the  Lord's  Supper." 

Dr.  Dick  in  his  Lectures  on  Theology,  p.  494,  says, 


ITS     RELATIVE     POSITION.  175 

that  baptism,  "  the  initiating  ordinance  of  the  Christian 
dispensation,"  is  "requisite  to  entitle  a  person  to  a 
seat  at  the  table  of  the  Lord;"  and  adds,  "I  do  not 
know  that  this  was  ever  called  in  question  till  lately, 
that  a  controversy  has  arisen  among-  the  English  Bap- 
tists, whether  persons  of  other  Christian  denominations 
may  not  be  occasionally  admitted  to  the  holy  commun- 
ion with  them  ;  and  it  became  necessary  for  those  who 
adopted  the  affirmative,  to  maintain  that  baptism  is  not 
a  previous  condition.  This  assertion  arose  out  of  their 
peculiar  system,  which  denies  the  validity  of  infant 
baptism  ;" — a  direct  admission  that  the  piactice  of  the 
regular  Baptist  churches  in  their  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  is  conformed  to  primitive  usage  ;  and 
that  their  "  peculiarity,"  or  the  point  in  which  they 
differ  from  other  denominations,  consists  in  their  views 
of  baptism,  not  of  the  communion.  And  until  they 
abandon  their  present  position,  and  actually  introduce 
the  practice  of  mixed  communion,  they  will  never  be 
justly  liable  to  the  charge  brought  by  Dr.  Dick  against 
some  of  the  English  Baptists,  of  departing  or  deviating 
from  what  even  Pedobaptist  churches  maintain  to  be 
the  only  consistent  and  scriptural  principle  of  action. 

The  principle  of  extending  the  invitation  to  unite  in 
the  observance  of  the  Lord's  supper  to  such  only  as 
have  been  baptized  on  a  credible  profession  of  faith, 
and  become  connected  with  the  church,  is  evidently, 
aside  from  the  fact  that  it  is  established  by  the  New 
Testament,  the  only  rational  and  consistent  principle. 
An  effective  motive  with  those  who  embrace  the  gos- 
pel for  seeking  membership  in  the  church,  and  thus 
assuming  its  responsibilities,  is  the  hope  of  enjoying  its 
privileges,  among  which  is  a  participation  in  the  Lord's 
supper.     Now  were  the  principles  of  mixed  commun- 


176  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

ion  to  be  generally  adopted,  this  motive  would  in  a 
great  measure  be  removed.  Many  who  might  esteem 
it  a  privilege  to  commune  with  the  church,  would  not, 
even  should  they  be  baptized,  choose,  for  a  variety  of 
reasons,  to  place  themselves  under  its  watchcare  and 
discipline,  or  enter  into  a  formal  engagement  to  sustain 
its  interests.  Their  influence  in  the  cause  of  Christ 
would  thus  be  mostly  lost  ;  and  the  church  would  so 
far  fail  of  accomplishing  the  object  for  which  it  was 
established. 

Mixed  communion,  moreover,  teaches  practically 
that  baptism  and  church  membership  are  of  little  im- 
portance, and  may  be  disregarded  with  impunity.  If 
those  who  have  never  been  received  into  the  fellowship 
of  the  church,  nor  even  baptized,  are  to  be  placed  on 
the  same  ground  with  church  members,  the  inference 
drawn  by  most  minds  will  be,  tliat  there  is  no  necessity 
for  assuming  the  badge  of  membership  at  all ;  that  an 
act  which  does  not  affect  the  rights  or  privileges  of 
christians,  nor  practically  their  relationship,  is  more  a 
matter  of  choice  and  convenience,  than  of  obligation, 
and  hence  may  be  observed  or  neglected  at  pleasure. 

In  mixed  communion,  moreover,  it  is  found  necessary 
to  adopt  certain  rules,  which,  while  they  are  really 
restrictive,  are  alike  arbitrary  and  unscriptural.  While 
in  theory  the  general  principle  is  assumed  that  all 
christians  should  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table,  it  is 
almost  universallij  abandoned  in  jyractice.  The  church- 
es professedly  acting  upon  this  principle  are  obliged  in 
attempting  to  apply  it,  to  institute  certain  regulations 
as  really  restrictive  as  the  terms  of  communion  pre- 
sented in  the  New  Testament ;  while  they  have  the 
disadvantage  of  being  avowedly  without  scriptural  au- 
thority.   They  are  accommodated  merely  to  the  wishes 


ITS     RELATIVE     POSITION.  177 

or  convenience  of  those  adopting'  them,  and  are  con- 
sequently for  the  most  part  entirely  arbitrary.  On 
what  principle  of  obligation,  for  example,  does  a 
church  extend  the  invitation  of  communion  to  those 
who  are  connected  with  some  church  usually  denom- 
inated evangelical,  whether  consisting  of  baptized  or 
of  unbaptized  members,  of  professed  christians,  or  in 
fact  of  such  as  are  merely  seeking  an  interest  in  Chris- 
tianity ;  while  all,  however  pious,  who  do  not  come 
under  this  designation,  are,  if  not  rejected,  at  least  not 
invited  ?  On  what  ground  is  this,  and  similar  dis- 
tinctions made  among  those  who  it  is  admitted  are  real 
christians  1  Why  is  not  the  invitation  extended  to 
christians  who  may  be  connected  with  churches  not 
termed  evangelical  ?  and  even  to  those  who,  from 
whatever  cause,  have  never  made  any  public  profes- 
sion of  religion  whatever  '?  In  fine,  why  is  not  the 
door  opened  indiscriminatel)'^  to  all  who  either  in  their 
own  estimation,  or  in  that  of  others,  have  been  con- 
verted, whatever  be  their  character  or  conduct  or  rela- 
tions in  other  respects  1  We  presume  there  is  not  an 
evangelical  church  practicing  mixed  communion,  in 
Christendom,  who  act  upon  this  unrestricted  principle. 
And  why,  we  ask,  is  it  not  applied  ?  Why  are  certain 
restrictions,  which  are  discarded  in  theory,  invariably 
adopted  in  practice  1  Evidently  because  the  theory  is 
false,  and  consequently  impracticable. 

It  thus  becomes  apparent  that  the  adherents  of  mix- 
ed communion  occupy  a  position  of  singular  inconsist- 
ency. Under  pretence  that  all  christians  should  indis- 
criminately be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table,  they  reject 
the  terms  of  admission  established  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles;  and  then,  finding  it  impossible  to  apply 
the  principle  in  practice,  they  assume  without  au- 


178  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

thoiity,  or  any  claim  to  authority,  the  prerogative  of 
instituting-  certain  restrictions  of  their  own  devising. 
The  inconsistencies  and  difficulties  in  which  their  the- 
ory inevitably  involves  them,  are  a  sufficient  indication 
of  its  utter  fallacy.  i 

The  only  rational  and  consistent  course  is  the  one 
marked  out  in  the  New  Testament.  The  scriptural 
terms  of  communion  are  alike  simple  and  easy  of  ap- 
plication. As  the  Lord's  supper  is  a  church  ordinance, 
and  none  can  properly  be  invited  to  unite  in  celebra- 
ting it,  but  such  as  have  been  received  into  the  fellow- 
ship of  tlie  church,  it  follows  that  whatever  is  a  bar  to 
church  membership,  is  a  bar  to  church  communion. 
If  it  be  the  duty  of  a  church  to  withdraw  from  every 
brother  who  walketh  disoi'derly, — from  such,  for  ex- 
ample, as  are  attached  to  a  system  of  error  which  sets 
aside  the  ordinances,  or  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
gospel, — if  it  would  be  improper  to  receive  such  to 
membership  in  the  church,  there  is  obviously,  for  the 
same  reason,  an  impropriety  in  inviting  them  to  the 
Lord's  table.  To  deny  the  correctness  of  this  position, 
is  to  reject  the  first  principles  of  gospel  order,  and  to 
strike  at  the  very  root  of  ail  visible  church  organiza- 
tion. If  a  visible  church  exist,  there  must  of  necessity- 
be  some  distinction  between  those  who  are,  and  those 
who  are  not  its  members ;  and  in  nothing  does  this  dis- 
tinction more  appropriately  appear  than  in  the  observ- 
ance of  its  special  ordinances. 

Inthe  light  of  these  suggestions,  it  is  scarcely  necessary 
to  remark  that  the  rejection  of  mixed  communion  is  no 
barrier  to  the  exercise  of  christian  charity.  It  indicates 
simply  a  conscientious  regard  for  the  will  of  Christ,  and 
a  disposition  to  preserve  the  order  of  his  church.  If  the 
fact  that  all  christians  are  not  indiscriminately  invited 


ITS    RELATIVE    POSITION.  179 

to  the  Lord's  table,  imply  a  deficiency  of  the  true 
christian  spirit,  it  is  a  cliarge  which  lies  equally  against 
every  evangelical  denomination  in  Christendom.  It  is 
a  fact  deserving  special  attention,  that  the  objections 
urged  on  this  ground  by  Pedobaptist  denominations 
against  the  usage  of  Baptist  churches,  are, — as  the 
reader's  own  observation  will  doubtless  furnish  abun- 
dant proof, — of  equal  weight  against  their  own  practice. 
A  single  example  will  sufficiently  illustrate  our  mean- 
ing. 

In  the  spring  of  1841,  during  an  interesting  revival 
of  religion  with  the  Congregational  church  in  the  vil- 
lage of  R.,  near  Hartford,  Conn.,  occurred  the  regular 
communion  season  of  the  church.  The  converts  in 
number  from  fifty  to  sixty  were  invited  to  repair  to  the 
gallery,  and  with  devout  feelings  to  "look  on"  and 
witness  the  celebration  of  the  ordinance.  Now  we 
ask.  Why  was  this  ?  Why  were  they  not  admitted  at 
once  to  the  communion  table  ?  Had  this  inquiry  been 
proposed  to  the  pastor  of  the  church,  he  would  doubt- 
less have  replied,  'It  is  not  that  we  have  not  fellow- 
ship for  them  as  christians.  It  is  not  that  we  wish  to 
make  unnecessary  distinctions  among  those  who  love 
Christ.  It  is  not  that  we  cannot  commune  with  them 
in  heaven.  It  is  simply  because  their  relationship  to 
the  church  is  not  in  our  estimation  such  as  will,  upon 
principles  of  gospel  order,  entitle  them  to  the  privilege.' 
The  reason  we  admit  to  be  sufficient.  We  only  ask 
that  it  be  acknowledged  to  be  of  equal  weight  when 
urged  in  vindication  of  the  practice  of  Baptist  churches. 
If  it  be  valid  in  the  one  case,  it  certainly  is  no  less  so 
in  the  other.  And  this  single  fact  properly  appreciated 
is  sufficient  to  effectually  silence  the  objections  com- 
monly urged  against  the  usage  of  Baptist  churches  in 


180  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

their  observance  of  the  Lord's  supper.  We  repeat  it, 
these  objections  are  equally  applicable  alike  to  the 
principles  and  the  practice  of  other  Christian  denom- 
inations. 

But  even  were  it  otherwise,  a  desire  to  remove  a 
groundless  objection  could  never  be  a  sui!icient  reason 
for  disregarding  the  scriptural  terms  of  communion, 
and  inviting  to  the  table  of  the  Lord  those  who  have 
never  been  received  into  the  fellowship  of  the  church. 
The  members  of  a  Christian  church,  while  cherishing 
an  unfeigned  love  for  all  who  evince  an  attachment  to 
Christ,  are  at  the  same  time,  sacredly  bound  to  keep 
the  ordinances  as  they  were  originally  delivered. 


Before  closing  our  remarks  respecting  the  design 
and  position  of  baptism,  we  call  attention  very  briefly 
to  the  bearing  of  the  subject  upon  the  decision  of  the 
question,  What  is  the  proper  form  of  government  for  the 
churches  of  Christ  1  What  form  might  we  expect  he 
would  establish  among  them,  the  character  and  privileges 
and  responsibility  of  the  members  being  such  as  are 
indicated  by  their  baptism  1  Not  surely  one  which 
should  involve  an  arbitrary  distinction  in  their  rights 
and  privileges  ;  which  should  prevent  them  from  act- 
ing authoritatively  and  decisively  as  members  of  the 
body,  in  preserving  its  discipline  and  purity,  or  in  select- 
ing and  applying  appropriate  means  for  its  prosperity ; 
which  should  place  the  responsibility  and  the  right  of 


ITS     RELATIVE     POSITION.  181 

deciding  who  may  be  admitted  or  retained  as  its  mem- 
bers, of  appointing  its  officers,  in  fine,  of  controlling  its 
affairs  in  general,  in  the  hands  of  a  single  individual, 
or  even  of  a  few  in  distinction  from  the  many.  Such 
a  government  would  be  repugnant  to  the  character  and 
spirit  of  Christ's  kingdom,  and  the  object  to  be  accom- 
plished by  a  church  oiganization  among  its  members. 
That  it  is  at  variance  with  the  model  of  a  church  given 
us  in  the  New  Testament,  will  be  sufficiently  obvious 
by  reference  to  the  following  passages  : — 1  Cor.  5 ; 
2-13  ;  6  :  1-5  ;  16  :  3  ;  2  Cor.  2  :  6 ;  8 :  19  ;  Acts  6  : 
3-5 ;  Mat.  18 :  17.  The  primitive  churches  were 
strictly  independent  bodies,  possessing  and  exercising 
the  power  of  self  government ; — "  they  elected,"  says 
Dr.  Mosheim,  "  their  own  rulers  and  teachers ;"  "they 
excluded  profligate  and  lapsed  brethren,  and  restored 
them  ;"  "in  a  word,  they  did  every  thing  that  is 
proper  for  those  in  whom  the  supreme  power  of  the 
community  is  vested." 

A  company  of  baptized  believers  thus  organized  on 
terms  which  are  adapted  to  bring  into  requisition  the 
wisdom  and  energies  of  the  whole  body,  exemplify  the 
scriptural  idea  of  a  Christian  church  ;  and  under  the 
influence  of  an  enlightened  and  consistent  piety  they 
possess  all  the  elements  of  true  and  permanent  pros- 
perity. 


16 


APPENDIX. 


]  Pet.  3 :  21  is  an  interesting  exposition  of  the  manner  in  which 
baptism  is  connected  witli  salvation.  Instead  of  teaching  that  it  pos- 
sesses any  intrinsic  efficacy  to  save,  it  was  evidently  intended  to  guard 
against  such  an  impression.  The  object  for  which  it  was  instituted  is 
altogether  different  from  that  of  the  Jewish  ablutions.  It  affects  our 
spiritual  interests  only  as  being  "the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God."  It  saves  in  the  same  general  sense  that  every  other  act 
of  obedience  saves ;  although  from  the  position  which  it  occupies,  it 
has  a  prominence  which  most  other  duties  have  not. 

The  apostle  in  the  preceding  context  is  speaking  of  the  sufferings  to 
which  christians  were  subjected  by  their  profession  of  the  gospel. 
The  mass  of  mankind  were  their  enemies  and  persecutors.  In  this, 
however,  there  was  no  cause  for  discouragement  on  their  part.  They 
rather  had  reason,  while  enjoying  the  protection  and  favor  of  God,  to 
consider  themselves  "  happy,"  ver.  14.  Noah  and  his  family  once 
stood  alone  in  the  world.  But  by  obeying  God  they  were  "  saved," 
while  the  rest  of  the  human  race,  "  being  disobedient,"  were  destroyed. 
The  case  was  similar  with  the  disciples  of  Christ.  By  being  baptized 
in  his  name,  and  thus  identifying  themselves  with  the  company  of  his 
followers,  they  had,  while  subjecting  themselves  to  the  reproach  and 
persecution  of  the  world,  "  answered  a  good  conscience  toward  God;" 
they  had  obeyed  their  convictions  of  duty ;  they  had  publicly  renounced 
the  world  and  its  pleasures,  and  had  signified  their  preference  for 
Christ  and  his  cause  ;  and  it  was  in  the  exercise  of  the  spirit  that  had 
prompted  this  course  of  action,  that  they  hoped  to  be  "  saved." 

Christ  had  said,  "  If  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  him- 
self, and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  me.  Whosoever  will  save  his 
life  shall  lose  it ;  but  whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  the 
gospel's,  the  same  shall  save  it." — "  Whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of 
me  and  of  my  words,  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation,  of  him 
shall  the  Son  of  man  be  ashamed,  when  he  cometh  in  the  glory  of  his 
Father,  with  the  holy  angels." — "  Whosoever  shall  confess  me  before 
men,  him  will  I  also  confess  before  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  But 
whosoever  shall  deny  me  before  men.  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my 
Father  who  is  in  heaven."     Mark  8  :  34,  35,  38  ;  Mat.  10 :  32,  33. 

These  declarations  of  Christ  were  intimately  associated  in  the  minds 
of  the  primitive  Christians  with  submission  to  baptism.  A  willingness 
to  be  baptized  was  in  their  circumstances,  for  the  most  part,  an  evi- 
dence of  sincere  attachment  to  Christ,  and  therefore  a  "  token  of  sal- 
vation ;"  while  an  unwillingness  to  assume  the  badge  of  discipleship, 
was  equivalent  to  being  "  ashamed  of  him  before  men,"  and  hence  a 
"token  of  perdition."    Christ  is  "  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to 


184  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

all  them  that  obey  him ;"  and  acceptable  obedience  always  supposes  or 
implies  the  existence  of  the  corresponding  spirit.  In  this  light  is  evi- 
dently to  be  understood  the  declaration, — "  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved."  A  settled  unwillingness  to  be  baptized, 
where  the  duty  is  clearly  perceived,  is  in  its  nature  inconsistent  with 
the  exercise  of  true  and  living  faith.  The  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  the 
duties  and  reponsibilities  which  its  proper  observance  involves,  have 
presented  to  the  mind  of  many  an  awakened  sinner,  an  effectual  barrier 
to  his  entering  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Others, — perhaps  after  a  severe 
and  protracted  struggle  with  their  convictions, — have,  upon  being 
brought  to  a  full  and  hearty  consent  or  willingness  to  take  upon  them- 
selves the  appointed  badge  of  discipleship,  obtained  in  the  exercise  of 
this  feeling,  evidence  of  forgiveness.  Such  cases  are  sufficient  to  illus- 
trate the  connexion  of  salvation  with  baptism  as  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  toward  God.  And  were  the  ordinance  at  the  present  day, 
generally  viewed  in  the  same  light  as  it  was  in  primitive  times,  a  wil- 
lingness to  be  baptized,  and  the  evidence  of  faith,  would  doubtless  in 
most  cases,  be  inseparable. 

B. 

Acts  2 :  38  evidently  imports  that  repentance  and  baptism  alike 
have  reference  to,  or  more  specifically,  a  direction  toward  "  the  re- 
mission of  sins;"  but  not  necessarily  in  the  same  sense.  The  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  the  reason  or  the  occasion  that  both  are  required  ;  but  in 
what  particular  aspects  it  is  so  with  respect  to  each,  must  be  deter- 
mined by  reference  to  the  distinctive  nature  and  province  of  each. 
Thus  in  Rom.  6:  10,  11,  Christ  and  the  believer  are  represented  as 
alike  dying  unto  sin ;  i.  e.,  sin  was  the  occasion  of  death  on  the  part 
of  both ; — it  was  on  account  of  sin  that  both  died  ;  but  it  will  not  surely 
be  contended  that  both  died  to  sin  in  the  same  sense. 

According  to  the  representation  of  Acts  2  :  38,  repentance  may  be 
considered  the  condition  on  which  remission  is  actually  conferred  ; 
baptism,  the  means  by  which  it  is  manifested  and  professed.  Baptism 
attaches  in  a  manner  to  the  public  character  what  had  by  repentance 
become  identified  with  the  private  experience.  The  penitent  is  for- 
given in  the  sight  of  God  ;  the  baptized  person  is  forgiven  in  the  esti- 
mation of  his  fellows ;  he  stands  before  the  world  in  a  new  character, 
as  one  divested  of  that  which  formerly  excluded  him  from  the  divine 
favor.     (Compare  the  note  on  page  27.) 

In  the  light  of  these  suggestions  we  see  the  reason  that  baptism  is 
presented  as  a  condition  of  ''  receiving  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
The  miraculous  effusion  of  the  Spirit  was  designed  as  a  public  proof  of 
the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  and  of  the  divine  presence  in  the 
Christian  church.  To  serve  this  purpose  most  effectually  it  was  ne- 
cessary that  it  should  ordinarily  be  restricted  to  such  as  by  being  bap- 
tized had  acknowledged  themselves  Christians,  and  who,  of  course, 
were  so  regarded  by  the  world.  In  being  baptized  they  professed  that 
as  Christians  their  sins  were  forgiven,  i.  e.,  that  they  were  reconciled 
to  God,  were  in  friendship  with  him,  were  the  objects  of  his  favor. 
And  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  was  a  divine  attestation  of  the  truth  of 
this  profession.  It  was  proof  to  the  world  that  the  privileges  and 
effects  which  in  baptism  were  ascribed  to  Christianity,  were  real;  that 
as  Christ  had  sent  forth  his  disciples  to  *'  preach  repentance  and  re- 


APPENDIX.  185 

mission  of  sins  in  his  name  among  all  nations,"  it  was  indeed  by  be- 
lieving in  his  name  that  "  the  remission  of  sins"  was  to  be  obtained. 
Hence  the  declaration,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  unto  the  remission  of  sins;  and  ye  shall  re- 
ceive the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

c. 

The  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Sjnril"-  is 
evidently  to  be  determined  by  the  same  process  that  we  ascertain  the 
import  of  other  figures  used  in  the  Scriptures  with  reference  to  the 
impartation  and  enjoyment  of  the  Spirit's  influences.  In  determining 
the  force  of  the  figure  employed  Acts  2:  4,  for  example,  we  do  not 
compare  it  with  other  figures,  as  that  of  drinking,  or  of  anointing,  or 
of  pouring,  see  1  Cor.  12 :  1.3  ;  1  John  2  :  20,  27  ;  Isa.  44  :  3,  and  gra- 
tuitously infer  that  they  are  synonymous,  simply  because  they  relate  to 
the  same  general  facts.  But  we  inquire,  What  does  the  term  used 
literally  signify  ?  and  translating  the  passage,  "  And  they  were  all 
filled  v^'ith  the  Holy  Spirit,"  we  at  once  perceive  that  the  figure  em- 
ployed is  that  oi filling. 

By  a  process  precisely  similar  we  may  arrive  at  a  knowledge  of  the 
import  of  the  figure  employed  Acts  1  :  5.  We  naturally  inquire,  not 
how  many  passages  represent  the  impartation  or  reception  of  the  Spirit, 
as  a  filling,  or  an  anointing,  or  a  drinking,  or  a  shedding,  or  an  out- 
pouring : — such  an  examination  is  as  inappropriate  and  as  useless  here, 
as  in  the  case  just  presented.  But  we  in([uire.  What  is  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize ;  and  ascertaining  that  it  properly  signi- 
fies to  immerse,  we  translate  the  passage,  "  Ye  shall  be  immersed  in 
the  Holy  Spirit."  This  is  decisive  in  showing  that  the  figure  employ- 
ed is  that  of  an  immersion;  especially  as  the  construction  is  such  as  to 
correspond  only  with  the  idea  of  immersion.  "  The  word  BaTrri^en 
(baptizein)"  siys  Dr.  Campbell,  "  is  always  construed  suitably  to  this 
meaning  (immersion) ;  thus  it  is,  in  vda-n,  (in  water),  h  ru  'lopdavri, 
(in  the  Jordan) ;  and  we  may  addii'  Ylvev^aTi  ayioy,  (in  the  Holy  Spirit). 
Were  the  expression,  however,  '  tcith  the  Holy  Spirit,'  it  would  not 
conflict  with  the  idea  of  immersion.  It  v/ould  simply  indicate  that  the 
Spirit  is,  in  distinction  from  other  things,  .brought  into  requisition  in 
effecting  the  immersion. 

The  only  objection,  we  believe,  that  is  urged  directly  against  the 
conclusion  at  which  we  have  thus  arrived,  is  that  arising  from  the 
assumption  that  the  figure  of  an  immersion  in  relation  to  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  unnatural.  This  objection,  however,  were  it 
founded  in  fact,  would  by  no  means  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting 
the  figure,  and  substituting  one  which  the  simple  import  of  the  lan- 
guage employed  will  not  warrant.  Nor  should  we  forget  that  what 
may  seem  to  us  unnatural,  may  possibly  not  be  so  in  reality.  The 
sacred  writei's  may  have  had  reasons  for  the  use  of  certain  figures  and 
phrases,  which  do  not  occur  to  our  minds ;  or  which  from  our  peculiar 
habits  of  thought  and  expression,  we  may  not  be  in  a  condition  fully 
to  appreciate. 

But,  independently  of  these  suggestions,  there  is  not  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  the  slightest  ground  for  the  objection.  It  arises,  we  ima- 
gine, chiefly  from  a  failure  to  apprehend  or  appreciate  the  exact  na- 
ture and  force  of  the  figure  employed.    The  precise  representation  we 

16* 


186  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

regard  to  be  this, — The  Holy  Spirit  is  conceived  of  as  coming  upon 
the  subject  in  such  measure  that  he  is  immersed,  overwhelmed,  en- 
compassed. The  word  baptize  in  this  case  expresses  the  simple  fact 
of  an  immersion.  The  manner  in  which  it  is  efTected  is  supplied  by 
the  mind,  and  corresponds,  of  course,  with  its  ordinary  conceptions 
respecting  the  nature  and  operation  of  the  Spirit's  influences.* 

Thus  understood  the  figure  is  not  merely  not  unnatural ;  it  is  pecu- 
liarly expressive  and  forcible.  It  is  exactly  adapted  to  the  purpose 
for  which  it  was  obviously  introduced,  viz.,  to  express  the  abundance 
or  cojnotis7iess  with  which  the  Spirit  should  be  bestowed  on  the  disci- 
ples subsequently  to  the  ascension  of  Christ.  They  had  already  been 
made  partakei's  of  the  Spirit.  His  influence  had  been  enjoyed  in  the 
renovation  of  their  hearts.  But  they  had  the  promise  that  in  time 
to  come,  they  should  be  baptized  with  it.  This  promise  was  fulfilled, 
as  appears  from  Acts  1  :  5  ;  2  :  1-4 ;  11 :  15,  IG,  at  the  season  of  Pen- 
tecost, when  "  there  came  suddenly  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rush- 
ing mighty  wind  ;  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting." 
"  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  An  extraor- 
dinary and  invisible  influence,  like  a  mighty  wind,  seemed  to  rush  in 
upon  them,  and  pervade  the  entire  atmosphere ;  so  that  they  became  as 
if  completely  immersed  in  it.  The  Spirit  resting  upon  them,  appeared 
to  encircle  them  with  his  influence. 

The  figure  of  an  immersion  in  the  passages  Acts  1:5;  Mat.  3:  11 ; 
etc.,  was  evidently  suggested  by  the  use  of  immersion  in  water  as  the 
initiatory  rite  of  the  gospel.  And  it  is  this  fact  in  part  that  gives  it  its 
peculiar  interest  and  lorce.  John  immersed  the  people  in  water:  this, 
in  one  view,  affected  simply  the  body;  it  was,  at  most,  merely  a  pro- 
fession of  an  interest  in  spiritual  things.  But  an  immersion  in  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit  shed  upon  them,  would  extend  in  its  effects 
to  the  soul ;  it  would  not  be  a  mere  symbol ;  but,  involving  a  real  effi- 
cacious agency,  it  would  be  an  actual  realization  of  the  blessings  of  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

*  The  use  of  ffaTrH^w,  as  thus  stated,  corresponds,  it  will  be  perceiv- 
ed, precisely  with  that  of  the  English  term,  to  immerse.  Had  the 
command  instituting  the  rite  of  baptism,  been  given  in  the  English 
language,  in  the  use  of  the  word  "  immerse,"  it  w^ould  have  been  uni- 
versally understood  as  enjoining  the  sjiecific  act  of  putting  beneath  the 
surface  of  the  water.  And  yet  with  a  slight  variation,  not  so  much  in 
the  meaning  of  the  term,  as  in  the  application  that  is  made  of  it,  we 
speak  familiarly,  and  with  perfect  propriety,  of  an  object  that  is  inun- 
dated or  covered  with  a  fluid,  as  being  immersed.  The  usage  with 
respect  to  the  Greek  term  PanTi^o}  appears  to  have  been  in  these  partic- 
ulars precisely  similar.  Even  President  Beecher  admits  that  an  object 
may  be  properly  baptized,  in  accordance  to  what  he  represents  as  "  the 
original  and  primitive  meaning  of  the  word,"  that  is,  it  may  be  brought 
into  a  state  where  it  is  "  enveloped  or  surrounded  by  a  fluid,"  by  the 
process  of  '^pouring  the  fluid  copiously  over"  it,  as  well  as  by  other 
methods.  No  one  surely  adopting  this  position,  will  contend  that  there 
is  any  thing  either  unnatural  or  inappropriate  in  the  use  of  the  figure 
of  a  baptism, — i.  e,,  a  being  "surrounded,"  "enveloped,"  immersed, — 
to  express  the  result  of  the  copious  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at 
the  time  of  Pentecost. 


APPENDIX.  187 

The  position  assumed, — inconsiderately,  we  are  constrained  to  be- 
lieve,— by  Mr.  Beecher  and  others,  that  the  figure  of  an  immersion  in 
relation  to  spiritual  influences  and  exercises,  does  not  accord  with  the 
ordinary  conceptions  of  the  human  mind,  finds  a  sufficient  refutation 
in  the  familiar  use  of  expressions  like  the  following  ; — "  absorbed  in 
communion  with  God  ;" — "  sinking  into  his  will ;" — "  swallowed  up 
in  his  love ;" — "  overwhelmed  with  a  sense  of  divine  things."  Exam- 
ples more  exactly  in  point,  however,  are  found  in  a  class  of  expressions 
much  in  use  among  certain  denominations  of  Christians,  in  whose 
viev?s  of  religious  experience  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  holds  a  con-  . 
spicuous  place.  How  often  in  listening  to  their  peiitions  do  we  hear 
language  like  this, — "  Let  thy  Holy  Spirit  descend  upon  us  in  copious 
effusions ;  shed  it  upon  us  abundantly ;  yea,  baptize  us  with  his 
sacred  influences." — "  Let  thy  sensible  prcsence_/i//  all  the  place,  per- 
vade the  entire  assembly ;  may  we  feel  it  within  us  and  around  us; 
may  the  very  atmosphere  be  that  of  heaven." — "  Let  thy  salvation  roll 
in  upon  us  like  a  flood;  let  it  come  like  a  mighty  torrent ;  may  wave 
after  wave  roll  over  us ;  deluge  the  entire  assembly  with  thy  glory; 
may  we  be  inundated  with  the  influences  of  thy  Holy  Spirit."  These 
expressions,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  them  in  other  respects,  are  de- 
cisive in  showing  hnw  naturally  the  mind  in  expressing  a  desire  for  a 
large  measure  of  divine  influence,  resorts  to  the  figure  of  an  immersion 
or  overwhelming. 

But  it  may  be  interesting  to  inquire,  in  what  light  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit  was  understood  by  the  ancient  Fathers  of  the  Christian 
church.  They  variously  represent  its  object  as  being  to  enlighten,  to 
purify,  to  furnish  with  spiritual  gifts,  &c.  But  the  baptism  itself  they 
describe  as  an  immersion  or  overwhelming  in  the  influences  of  the 
Spirit.  This  appears  in  the  very  construction  which  they  adopt.  In 
contrast  with  being  baptized  in  water,  or  in  the  waters,  (see  notes,  p. 
59),  they  customarily  speak  of  being  baptized  m  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Origen,  for  example,  speaking  of  Christians,  and  alluding  to  1  Cor.  10: 
1,  2,  says,  "  We  would  not  have  you  ignorant,  brethren,  that  all  our 
fathers  have  passed  through  Jordan,  and  have  all  been  baptized  into 
Jesus,  in  the  Spirit  and  in  the  river."  Any  translation  of  this  passage 
which  should  not  express  immersion,  or  the  idea  of  being  baptized  in 
the  Spirit,  would  carry  with  it  its  own  refutation.* 

But  passages  are  not  infrequent  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  in 
which  they  directly  explain  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  as  being  an  im- 
mersion in  the  Spirit. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  speaking  of  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  at  the  sea- 
son of  Pentecost,  says,  "  He  descended  that  he  might  invest  with  his 
influence — that  he  might  baptize  the  apostles.  For  the  Lord  says, 
'  But  ye  shall  be  baptized  in  the  Holy  Spirit  not  many  days  hence  .' 
The  grace  was  not  in  part;  the  influence  was  in  full  perfection.  For 
as  he  who  goes  into  the  water  and  is  baptized  (immersed),  is  encom- 
passed on  all  sides  by  the  waters ;  so  were  they  completely  baptized 
(immersed)  by  the  Spirit.  The  water  envelops  externally ;  but  the 
Spirit  baptizes  (immerses,  envelops)  also,  and  that  perfectly,  the  soul 
within." — "  But  that  the  plenitude  of  so  great  grace  descending  might 
not  escape  unnoticed,  there  came  a  sound  as  a  signal  from  heaven. 

*  The  passage,  moreover,  is  decisive  in  showing  that  immersion  was 
the  uniform  practice  of  the  primitive  Christians. 


188  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

'  And  suddenly  there  was  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  mighty 
wind,'  indicating  the  presence  (of  the  Spirit)." — '' '  And  it  filled  all 
the  house  where  they  were  sitting.'  The  house  became  the  reservoir 
of  the  spiritual  water ;  the  disciples  were  sitting  within,  and  the 
whole  house  was  filled.  They  were  therefore  completely  baptized 
(immersed),  according  to  the  promise."     Cat.  17,  §  8. 

Chrysostom,  in  his  commentary  on  Mat.  3:  11,  represents  the 
phrase,  "  He  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  as  expressing  the 
fact  that  Christians  should  be  ''  furnished  abwidantly"  with  the  gifts 
of  the  Spirit.  And  after  giving  an  extended  list  of  the  spiritual  bless- 
ings connected  with  the  gospel  dispensation,  he  adds,  "  He  enigmati- 
cally expresses  all  of  these  in  saying,  '  He  shall  baptize  you  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,'  showing  by  this  figure  of  speech,  the  abundance  of  the 
grace  conferred.  For  he  does  not  say,  '  He  shall  grant  you  the  Holy 
Spirit,'  but,  '  He  shall  bajytize  (immerse)  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit ;'  and 
by  the  additional  mention  of  fire,  he  indicates  the  vehemence  and  irre- 
sistibility of  the  grace." 

Accordingto  the  representation  of  Basil,  (De  Baptismo,  Lib.  1,  Cap. 
2),  one  who  is  "  baptized  (immersed)  in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  and  in  that 
fire  which  is  the  source  of  spiritual  light,  the  word  of  God,  is  in  a  con- 
dition to  be  fully  subjected  to  their  influence,  and  to  become  trans- 
formed to  their  nature,  that  is,  to  become  enlightened  and  purified ; 
'\just  as  wool  baptized  (immersed)  in  dye  is  changed  in  respect  to  its 
color;"  or  "  as  iron  baptized  (immcTsei)  in  fire  excited  by  blowing,  is 
rendered  more  susceptible  of  purification,  and  becomes  not  only  lumin- 
ous, but  soft  and  flexible,  and  can  more  easily  be  wrought  under  the 
hand  of  the  artificer. 

Theophylact,  commenting  on  Mat.  3  :  11,  says  "  '  He  shall  baptize 
you  in  the  Holy  Spirit,'  that  is,  he  shall  inundate  yon  abundantly  with 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit." 

These  examples  will  surely  suffice  to  explain  in  what  sense  "  the 
figure  of  speech,"  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  understood  by 
the  early  Christians.  They  show  clearly  why  it  is  that  in  the  ancient 
versions  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  in  such  passages  as  Acts  1 ; 
5  ;  Mat.  3:  11,  the  translation,  "  Ye  shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy 
Spirit."  "  I  indeed  immerse  you  in  water, — but — he  shall  immerse 
you  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  They  are,  moi-eover,  equally  interesting  aa 
establishing  beyond  all  ground  of  dispute  the  fact,  that  the  ancient 
Greek  Fathers  customarily  used  the  word  /?a7rr(fco  (baptize),  when 
alluding  to  Christian  baptism,  in  the  specific  sense  to  immerse.  We 
see  not  how  it  is  possible  in  the  light  of  these  examples  to  hesitate  as 
to  the  meaning  attached  to  it  by  the  Christian  writers  of  the  first  cen- 
turies, 

D. 

Some  of  the  lexicons  after  giving  the  simple,  proper  definition  of 
/Sairrt'^tj,  viz.,  to  immerse,  to  dip,  to  submerge,  &c.,  append,  as  a  remote 
sense,  "  to  wash,"  or  more  specifically,  "to  bathe,"  to  wash  by  bathing 
or  immersion.  Were  it  conceded,  hoAvever,  that  this  definition  is  cor- 
rect, it  would  by  no  means  warrant  the  conclusion,  that  the  simple 
termused  absolutely  is  adapted  to  express  this  idea.  Tlie  occurrence 
of  a  single  example  in  which  in  some  peculiar  connexion,  it  was  in  the 
opinion  of  a  lexicographer,  used  to  denote  washing,  would  be  deemed 


APPENDIX.  189 

by  him  a  sufficient  reason  for  giving  the  sense,  to  wash,  in  the  list  of 
its  definitions.  We  presume  no  one  familiar  with  the  principles  on 
which  lexicons  are  usually  constructed,  will  dispute  the  correctness  of 
this  remark.*  In  many  of  the  lexicons,  however,  the  definition,  to 
wash,  is  entirely  omitted;  and  evidently,  on  the  ground  that  washing 
is  in  reality  only  an  effect  of  the  act  designated,  and  merely  implied, — 
i.  e.,  under  certain  circumstances, — in  its  performance.  A  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  very  few  passages  in  which  the  sense,  to  wash,  has 
been  assigned  to  the  term,  has  fully  shown  that  the  idea  of  washing  is 
deducible,  rather  from  attending  circumstances,  than  from  the  word 
itself;  and  that  there  is  no  reason,  even  in  these  special  instances,  for 
departing  from  its  original,  proper  signification,  to  immerse  or  dip. 

The  Jews,  for  example,  were  required  by  the  Mosaic  law,  in  certain 
cases, — and  the  requisition  was  subsequently  extended  by  the  Jewish 
"elders,"  to  cases  not  originally  specified, — to  "bathe  themselves  in 
water,''  and  to  "  jnit  into  loater,''  their  utensils,  whether  they  were 
vessels  of  wood,  or  raiment,  or  skin,  or  sack,  or  any  other  vessel  where- 
in work  was  done."  Lev.  11:  32;  17:  15;  etc.  From  Maimonides, 
the  celebrated  Jewish  Rabbi  of  the  twelfth  century,  who  prepared  with 
great  care  a  compendium  of  the  written  traditions  of  the  Jews,  we 
learn,  that  these  regulations  were  understood  by  them, — and  very  nat- 
urally indeed, — as  referring  specifically  to  immersion,  in  distinction 
from  a  simple  washing.  Hence  it  is  said,  "  Wherever  in  the  law, 
washing  of  the  flesh,  or  of  clothes,  is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else 
than  the  imtnersion  of  the  whole  body  in  a  bath."  "In  a  bath,"  it  is 
further  stated,  "  containing  forty  seahs  of  water, — every  defiled  man," 
except  in  certain  special  cases, — "■immerses  himself;  and  in  it  they 
immerse  all  unclean  vessels."  The  requisition  to  immerse  vessels  be- 
fore using  them,  extended  not  only  to  those  "bought  of  the  Gentiles," 
but  also  to  those  manufactured  by  Jews — "care  is  to  be  taken  about 
them,  lo  !  these  must  be  immersed.''  Particular  directions  are  given 
respecting  the  immersion  of  cups,  pots,  kettles,  glass  and  molten  ves- 
sels, couches,  &.C.  "  A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  one  immerses  it, 
part  by  part,  it  is  pure." 

Their  utensils  or  persons  were  thus,  as  occasion  required,  baptized, 
i.  e.,  immersed.  As  an  effect  of  this,  they  were  washed  or  cleansed. 
The  former  is  related  to  the  latter,  as  means  to  a  result ;  and  although 
in  certain  connexions  allusion  may  be  made  to  the  means  for  the  sake 
of  indicating  the  result,  it  is  surely  as  unnecessary,  as  it  is  inconsistent 
witir  correct  principles  of  interpretation,  to  confound  the  two,  and 
contend  that  the  terms  by  which  they  are  expressed,  are  synonymous. 

"  The  bath,"  says  Jahn,  in  his  Biblical  Archaeology,  "  was  always 

*  An  apposite  illustration  is  furnished  in  the  case  of  the  English 
word  dip.  Among  the  definitions  given  in  Webster's  Dictionary,  we 
find, "  to  moisten,  to  wet.''  And  yet  no  one  acquainted  with  the  Eng- 
lish language  will  pretend,  that  to  dip  an  object,  is  simply  to  moisten 
or  wet  it.  "Nor  would  it  follow,  could  examples  be  adduced  in  which 
in  certain  connexions  language  expressive  of  baptizing  or  immersing 
one's  self  in  water,  were  used  to  denote  washing,  that  to  be  baptized  or 
immersed,  is  simply  to  be  washed ;  or  that  a  command  to  baptize  or 
immerse  an  object,  could  be  fulfilled  by  simply  washing  it  irrespect- 
ively of  mode. 


190  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

very  agreeable  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  East ;  and  it  is  not  surprising 
that  it  should  have  been  so,  since  it  is  not  only  cooling  and  refreshing, 
but  is  absolutely  necessary  to  secure  a  decent  degree  ofcleanliness  in  a 
climate  where  there  is  so  much  exposure  to  dust."  Bathing  was  also  a 
common  practice  among  the  Greeiis  and  Romans.  For  this  purpose,  ia 
addition  to  their  numerous  public  baths,  which  were  "  furnished  with 
various  accommodations  for  convenience  and  pleasure,"  and  which 
"  commonly  contained  several  separate  rooms,"  families  provided 
themselves, — as  is  the  case  in  many  oriental  countries  at  the  present 
day, — with  private  baths.  The  bath  in  use  among  the  Jews  is  de- 
scribed as  containing  "forty  seahs  of  water,"  or  about  a  hundred  gal- 
lons ;  somewhat  larger  than  the  portable  bath  commonly  used  in  this 
country.  The  cases  in  which  the  use  of  the  bath  was  required  by  the 
Jewish  traditions,  were  exceedingly  numerous.  Indeed,  frequent 
bathing  was  unavoidable  in  a  compliance  simply  with  the  requisitions 
of  the  law,  "This  part  of  the  law,"  says  Dr.  Scott,  "the  Jews  might 
observe  at  present :  but  it  is  said,  that  they  do  not  think  themselves 
bound  by  it;  [as  is  also  the  case  with  respect  to  the  oli'ering  of  sacrifi- 
ces, and  other  rites,]  now  they  have  no  temple,  and  live  in  other  lands ; 
as  it  had  reference  to  the  sanctuary  of  God,  and  the  holy  land."  In 
many  cases,  however,  ceremonies  of  ablution  for  purposes  of  ceremo- 
nial purification,  are  still  scrupulously  observed.  A  numerous  Jewish 
sect  living  in  Abyssinia,  are  reported  as  performing  a  complete  ablu- 
tion whenever  they  "come  from  market,  or  any  public  place,  where 
they  may  have  touched  any  one  of  a  sect  different  from  their  own,  es- 
teeming all  such  unclean."  How  strikingly  does  this  accord  with 
what  we  know  of  the  spirit  and  practice  of  the  ancient  Jews  who 
"  held  the  traditions  of  the  elders."  See  Mark  T  :  1-S ;  Luke  11  : 
37—1-2.  Indeed,  it  is  related  of  the  Pharisees,  that  "  if  they  but  touched 
the  garments  of  the  common  people,  they  were  defiled,  and  needed 
immersion."*  It  will  be  particularly  noticed  that  what  their  traditions 
represent  as  necessary  in  such  cases,  was  immersion.  This  was  the 
thing  required;  not  simply  a  washing,  but  in  distinction  from  this,  an 
immersion,  expressed  by  an  appropriate  term,  tavul.  We  should  ac- 
cordingly naturally  anticipate  that  whenever  occasion  might  occur  for 
expressing  this  term,  or  the  transaction  designated  by  it,  in  Greek, 
some  word  would  be  selected  which  would  also  denote  immersion. 
Any  exam|)les,  therefore,  in  which  /JoTrn'^w  may  be  so  used,  are  direct 
proof  that  it  means  to  immerse,  immersion  is  not  only  in  such  cases,"^ 
in  all  respects  a  suitable  meaning;  it  is,  for  reasons  independent  of  the  ' 
customary,  established  import  of  the  term,  the  most  natural  and  proba-  -^ 
ble  sense.  Why  should  a  ceremony  be  designated  exj)ressly  and  famil- 
iarly "immersion,"  in  one  language,  and  not  a  term  of  similar  import  • 
be  employed  to  express  it  in  another  ?  / 

E. 

The  word  baptism  is  not  unfrequently  in  its  technical  acceptation, 
applied  by  the  Christian  Fathers  to  various  things  which  they  con- 
ceived miL':ht  answer  the  same  purpose  with  baptism  ;  which  were  in 
design  am!  effect  baptism.  The  same  usage  is  also  extended  to  other 
terms  descriptive  of  religious  ceremonies.     The  application  of  Christ's 

*  See  Maimonides  quoted  by  Dr.  Giil  on  Mark  vii. 


APPENDIX.  191 

atonement,  for  example,  is  styled  the  "sprmMn^o/ Wood,-"  his  blood 
is  designated  "  the  blood  of  sjirinkling  ;"  not  as  being  such  in  form, 
or  in  reality,  but  merely  as  answering  a  similar  purpose.  As  it  would 
be  idle  to  assume  that  the  word  ^pavna-iiSg  (rantismos)  does  not  properly 
mean  sprinkling,  because  there  is  in  these  instances  allusion  to  the 
object,  rather  than  to  the  act  of  sprinkling ;  it  is  obviously  no  less  so, 
to  contend  that  the  term  baptism  was  not  regarded  by  the  Fathers  as 
signifying  immersion,  because  they  frequently  used  it  in  a  technical 
manner  to  indicate  the  object,  rather  than  the  act  of  Christian  baptism. 
The  fallacy  of  the  arguments  by  which  Mr.  Beecher  attempts  to 
prove  that  the  Fathers  used  the  word  Panrl^o)  in  the  sense  to  jnirify, 
rather  than  to  immerse,  is  sufficiently  evident  from  the  simple  fact, 
that  the  same  proof  might  be  adduced  to  show  that,  they  regarded  it  as 
meaning  to  regenerate,  or  to  illuminate,  or  to  initiate,  or  to  remit 
sins.  These  terms  are  applied  by  them  as  directly  and  as  familiarly, 
and  with  as  great  a  variety  of  construction  to  baptism,  as  any  term  de- 
noting purification.  They  were  each,  as  occasion  recjuired,  employed 
to  express  what  baptism,  that  is,  the  rite  so  called,  was  conceived  to 
be  in  its  nature  and  effects.  The  use  thus  made  of  them,  however,  is 
no  proof, — it  does  not  even  create  a  presumption,  that  they  express 
what  was  considered  to  be  the  proper  meanitig  of  the  word  fiawTi^io: 
and  it  is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  impossible  that  precisely  the  same 
kind  of  facts  should  prove  that  it  was  used  in  the  sense,  to  purify. 

The  usage  to  which  allusion  is  here  had,  exhibits  in  a  striking  light 
the  folly  of  applying  to  the  Fathers  to  ascertain  the  nature  and  import 
of  baptism  as  an  ordinance  of  the  gospel.  The  fact  that  they  speak  of 
it  as  regeneration,  or  illumination,  or  remission,  or  salvation,  does  not 
prove  that  these  terms  are  in  this  case  appropriately  applied.  Nor  does 
the  fact  that  they  represent  it  as  a  purification,  show  that  it  is  such  in 
reality,  or  was  so  regarded  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  The  truth  is 
none  of  these  terms  are  adapted  to  designate  a  gospel  ordinance.  One 
who  is  baptized  is  not  "  regenerated.'^  Nor  for  the  same  reason  is  he 
purified.  Baptism  is  not  "  the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh."  It 
is  not  a  purification  even  in  a  ceremonial  respect ;  much  less  in  any 
sense  recognized  by  the  gospel. 

Words  meaning  to  purify  as  applied  to  the  rites  of  religion,  had 
always  been  understood  to  indicate  what  they  properly  signified.  The 
Jewish  rites  did  not,  it  is  true,  "  take  away  sin  as  pertaining  to  the  con- 
science." But  they  were  universally  regarded  as  being,  in  a  ceremo- 
nial or  legal  sense,  actual  purifications ;  and  it  toas  only  as  they  were 
so  regarded,  that  they  were  so  desig7iated.  This  fact  is  one  which 
Mr.  Beecher  seems  to  have  entirely  overlooked.  And  it  is  alone  suffi- 
cient, when  duly  considered,  to  show  the  fallacy  of  his  whole  theory. 
Had  Christ  employed  for  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  not  in  some  con- 
nexion where  special  reference  was  made  to  its  symbolical  import,  but 
in  instituting  it,  and  as  its  very  enacting  term,  a  word  meaning  to  pu- 
rify, he  would  thereby  have  designated  it  as  a  rite  of  purification. 
The  requisition  would  have  been  that  those  who  embraced  the  gospel, 
should,  upon  entering  the  church,  he  purified.  And  as  this  could  not 
well  refer  simply  to  a  ceremonial  purification,  a  very  natural  inference 
would  have  been,  that  the  reference  was  to  a  purification  affecting  the 
moral  state  or  character.  And  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  purification 
would,  at  least  with  most  minds,  have  found  a  sufficient  support  in  the 
very  name  of  the  ordinance, — in  the  simple  term  of  enactment — be 
purified. 


192  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

That  this  would  have  been  the  unavoidable  result,  is  sufficiently 
manifest  in  the  conclusions  to  which  Mr.  Beecher's  theory  has  con- 
ducted himself.  He  assumes  that  to  baptize  is  to  purify.  This  leads 
at  once  to  the  position  that  "  baptism,"  and  "  the  remission  of  sins," 
are  "  synonymous"  and  "  interchangable"  expressions.  And  it  is  on 
this  identical  assumption  that  a  great  portion  of  his  argument  drawn 
from  the  Fathers  for  determining  the  meaning  of  /JoTrri^o),  is  founded. 
Nor  does  he  conline  this  usage  to  the  Fathers,  He  represents  it  as 
extending  equally  to  the  New  Testament.  Referring  to  Acts  22:  IG, 
he  says,  "  Arise,  and  he  purified  or  expiated  is  the  import  of  the  com- 
mand," Mat.  2S  :  19,  he  expresses  thus,  "Go  ye,  therefore,  teach  all 
nations,  purifying  them  (that  is,  remitting,  to  them  that  repent  and 
believe,  their  sins),  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  the  same  connexion  he  observes,  "  I  will  con- 
clude this  general  view  by  noticing  its  bearings  on  a  question  relating 
to  the  commission  to  baptize.  It  is  this.  Wliy  was  there  a  commis- 
sion given  to  baptize  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  none  in  Luke  and 
John  ?  This  is  a  question  for  those  to  answer  who  deny  the  correct- 
ness of  the  view  that  I  have  given — for  on  this  view  it  presents  no 
difficulty  at  all.  The  reply  is,  that  a  commission  to  baptize  is  in  fact 
a'  commission  to  purify,  that  is,  a  commission  to  remit  sins ;  and  in 
Luke  and  John,  the  disciples  do  receive  a  commission  to  remit  sins. 
Luke  24  :  47,  4S — '  That  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be 
preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations, — and  ye  are  witnesses  of  these 
things,'  that  is,  that  repentance  and  baptism  should  be  preached  in  his 
name  among  all  nations — for  according  to  Zonarus  and  the  Fathers, 
baptism  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit." 

Here  we  see,  at  a  glance,  the  tendency  of  Mr.  Beecher's  theory,  and 
the  nature  of  the  proof  on  which  he  relies  to  support  it.  It  is  in  vain 
that  he  subsequently  remarks,  that  remission  of  sins  is  "through  the 
death  of  Clirist,"  and  that  baptism  is  the  rite  by  which  it  is  "  shadowed 
forth  and  commemorated."  ''  Baptism,"  and  "remission  of  sins,"  are 
with  him  synonymous  and  interchangable  expressions.  The  command 
to  baptize,  in  the  commission,  is  a  command  to  "  remit  si7is."  The 
preaching  of  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
is  the  preaching  of  repentance  and  baptism  in  his  name  ;  "/br  baptism 
is  according  to  Zonarus  and  the  Fathers,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  by 
water  and  the  Spirit." 

No  one  surely  holding  evangelical  sentiments  could  ever  have  been 
tempted  to  employ  such  language,  except  in  defence  of  a  false  and 
tinscriptural  theory.  Does  any  evangelical  Christian  believe  that  bap- 
tism, as  the  term  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  means  what  Zonarus, 
alluding  to  its  technical  use, represents  as  having  been  in  his  time,  (the 
twelfth  century,) — not,  as  Mr.  Beecher  would  have  us  believe,  the 
meaning  of  the  ivord,  but,  as  the  reader  will  readily  perceive, — tlie  na- 
ture or  province  of  the  rite  which  it  designated,  to  wit,  "  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit  .'"*    Does  lie  believe  that  ChriJt  in 

*  That  Zonarus  is  simply  giving  a  description  of  the  rite  of  baptism, 
or  explaining  what,  in  the  estimation  of  his  cotemporaries,  who  ascribed 
to  it  a  saving  efficacy,  it  was  in  its  nature  and  uses,  would  seem  to  be 
placed  beyond  all  dispute  by  the  fact,  that  he  goes  on  to  describe  it 
still  further,  as  "  the  loosing  of  the  bond  granted  from  love  to  man," 
"  tlie  voluntary  arrangement  of  a  second  life  toward  God,"   "  the  re- 


APPENDIX.  193 

his  final  commission  commanded  his  disciples  to  go  and  leach  all  na- 
tions, purifying  them,  that  is,  remitting  their  sins  ?  Can  he  persuade 
himself  that  he  is  commanded  to  ''  arise  and  be  purified  or  expiated" 
(in  baptism) "?  So  far  is  this  from  being  true,  there  is  nothing  like 
purification  in  any  way  involved  in  baptism.  Baptism,  it  is  true,  is  a 
symbol  of  the  washing  away  of  sin.  But  any  thing  like  an  actual  puri- 
fication, expressed  or  implied,  is  altogether  foreign  to  the  ordinance. 
It  accordingly  follows  that  a  term  expressive  of  purification  would  not 
have  been,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  adapted  to  express  the  command. 
Where  there  is  no  purification  in  fact,  none  can  be  expressed,  none 
can  be  required.  We  do  not,  of  course,  refer  to  language  which  may 
be  used  in  a  figurative  sense  to  indicate  the  symbolical  import  of  the 
rite,  but  to  the  use  of  terms  in  their  plain,  literal  acceptation,  to  ex- 
press the  thi7ig  required,  or  to  be  performed.  In  such  a  case,  we 
repeat,  where  there  is  no  purification  in  fact,  none  can  be  expressed 
or  required. 

But  not  only  is  there  nothing  like  purification  connected  with  the 
import  of  the  word  baptism  as  used  in  the  New  Testament;  this  was 
not,  as  we  have  before  stated,  the  meaning  attached  to  it  by  the  Fa- 
thers. While,  on  the  one  hand,  believing  that  baptism  was  efficacious 
in  changing  the  moral  state  and  character  of  its  subjects,  they  have 
applied  to  it, — that  is,  to  the  rite, —  a  variety  of  appellations  indicative 
ofthisfact;  as  regeneration,  remission,  purification,  salvation,  etc.  ;  it 
is  equally  clear,  on  the  other  hand,  that  they  regarded  the  word  bap- 
tize as  meaning  specifically  to  immerse.  This  Mr.  Beecher,  adhering 
to  his  own  principles  of  interpretation,  would  be  obliged  to  admit. 
He  maintains  (§  1,)  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  used  with  refer- 
ence to  Christian  baptism,  cannot  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  at  the 
same  time  "  botli  generic  and  specific ;"  and  that  consequently 
"whichever  way  we  decide  as  it  regards  its  import,  we  ought  to  be 
uniform  in  its  use  as  applied  to  the  rite  of  baptism  ;"  that  "  as  applied 
to  a  given  rite  it  has  not  two  or  many  meanings,  but  one,  and  to  that 
one  we  should  in  all  cases  adhere."  Now  let  it  be  borne  in  mind, 
that  Mr.  Beecher  himself  acknowledges  that  in  some  instances,  ffairri^ia 
is  actually  and  "  plainly"  used  by  the  Fathers  in  the  specific  sense  to 
immerse.  It  might  easily  be  shown  by  a  direct  appeal  to  examples 
equally  decisive  with  those  which  he  has  adduced,  that  they  habitu- 
ally used  it  in  this  sense.  Indeed,  we  think  no  one  can  candidly  ex- 
amine even  the  few  examples  given  in  the  preceding  pages,  without 
being  convinced  that  they  regarded  this  as  the  meaning,  the  specific 
meaning  of  the  word.     We  have  then,  and  that  too,  on  Mr.  Beecher's 

leasing  of  the  soul  for  that  which  is  better,"  &c.  A  much  more  ap- 
propriate reference  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Beecher,  would  have  been  to  1 
Pet.  3:  21,  where  baptism  is  described  as  "  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science toward  God."  This  would  have  been  in  truth  a  scriptural 
statement  of  the  nature  and  design  of  the  ordinance.  The  language 
of  Zonarus  is  not  even  this.  Much  less  can  it  be  regarded  as  a  simple 
definition  of  the  word.  No  mere  word  in  any  language,  ancient  or 
modern,  could  possibly,  without  involving  a  contradiction,  be  thus  de- 
fined. And  yet  this  may  be  regarded  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  kind  of 
proof  on  which  Mr.  Beecher  mainly  relies  to  establish  the  meaning  of 
the  word  /?ajrrif  a>,  as  used  by  the  Fathers. 

17 


194  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

own  principles,  decisive  proof,  that  the  Fathers  did  not  consider  the 
meaning  of /JaTTTifu  as  being  to  purify,  but,  on  the  contrary, /o  immerse. 
A  single  passage  in  Gregory  Nazianzen  could  hardly  fail  in  itself  to 
lead  to  this  conclusion.  He  gives  (Oratio  -10)  a  formal  statement  of 
what  was  regarded  as  the  mystical  import  or  significancy  of  various 
names  or  appellations  by  which  the  initiatory  rite  of  Christianity  was 
then  designated.  One  appellation,  for  example,  indicated  that  it  was  a 
source  of  divine  illumination ;  another,  that  it  was  a  means  o(  washing 
away  sin,  &c. ;  while  the  name  baptism  (immersion)  was  indicative 
of  burial — it  indicated  that  as  the  subject  was  buried  in  the  water, 
there  was  at  the  same  time  a  burial  of  his  sins ;  or,  in  the  language  of 
Chrysostom,  that  "  the  old  man  was  buried,"  (see  page  3G) ;  in  a  word, 
that  there  was  a  mystical  burial  to  answer  to  the  burial  or  immersion 
of  the  body  in  the  water  ;  just  as  there  was  a  mystical  washing,  or  the 
washing  away  of  sin,  to  answer  to  the  external  washing  or  bathing 
(Xourpdi/),  (see  page  07).  This  is  direct  proof  that  while  the  Fathers 
designated  the  rite  by  different  appellations,  as  illumination,  regenera- 
tion, purification,  etc.,  they  did  not  imagine  that  these  expressed  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptism  ;  this  was  in  fact  a  distinct  appellation, 
having  its  own  appropriate  and  specific  meaning  ;  which  was  not  puri- 
fication, but  as  distinguished  from  this,  a  meaning  identified  with  the 
idea  oi  burial  or  immersion  in  the  water.  Indeed,  the  idea  of  purifi- 
cation, implied  in  the  washing  away  of  sin,  is,  like  that  of  illumina- 
tion, etc.,  represented  by  Gregory  as  being  associated  with  the  rite 
through  the  medium  of  an  entirely  different  term. 

F. 

The  phrase  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or  "the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  as 
employed  by  the  sacred  writers,  usually  denotes  the  kingdom  of  the 
promised  Messiah.  This  in  its  realization  is  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
extending  alike  to  heaven  and  earth,  and  embracing  as  its  members  all 
who  are  united  to  him  in  the  covenant  of  grace.  Mat.  28  :  18  ;  Phil. 
2:  9,  10;  Eph.  1  ;  10;  3:  1-5. 

The  phrase,  however,  as  it  frequently  refers  expressly  to  the  king- 
dom of  Christ  in  its  future  or  heavenly  state,  see  Mark  9 :  47  ;  2 
Thess.  1  :  5,  is,  in  many,  perhaps  in  most  of  the  passages  in  which  it 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  applied  specifically  to  his  kingdom  as 
established  on  earth ;  which  the  apostle  describes  as  being  ''  not 
meat  and  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Rom.  14:  17.  See  also  Mat.  12:  28;  13:  33;  Mark  12: 
34;  etc. 

With  this  application  the  phrase  is  evidently  to  be  taken  in  Mat. 
18  :  1-4  ;  Mark  10  :  14,  l.").  The  disciples  had  been  disputing  among 
themselves  as  to  who  should  have  the  pre-eminence  ;  comp.  Mark  8 : 
33-37  ;  Mat.  18 ;  1-6  ;  and  they  came  to  Jesus  with  the  inquiry, 
"  Who  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  .'"  The  reference  is  obvi- 
ously, not  to  the  heavenly  state,  but  to  the  distinctions  and  orivileges 
which  they  conceived  were  to  be  enjoyed  in  the  kingdom  of  their 
Master  on  earth.  Our  Lord  accordingly,  referring  to  the  subjects  of 
his  reign,  replies,  "  Whosoever  shall  humble  himself  as  this  little 
child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven;"  that  is,  shall  be 
regarded  as  my  most  honored  and  favored  servant.  He  then  proceeds 
to  speak  of  the  light  in  which  the  members  of  his  kingdom  should  be 


APPENDIX.  195 

viewed,  the  manner  in  which  they  should  be  treated,  and  the  feelings 
which  they  should  cherish  toward  each  other.  Mat.  18  :  5,  6  ;  Mark  9: 
3G,  37  ;  Luke  9 ;  48.     Compare  also  Mat.  20  :  2-5-27. 

In  ver.  She  presents  the  qualifications  necessary  for  membership  in 
his  kingdom.  Compare  the  language  with  that  of  Luke  16 :  16  ; — "The 
law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John  ;  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  preached,  and  every  ra^npresseth  into  it.  Mat.  23 :  13, — "  Ye 
shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men  ;  for  ye  neither  go  in 
yourselves,  neither  suffer  ye  them  that  are  entering  to  go  in."  See 
also  Mark  12:  34;  Col.  1  :  13.  That  which  prevented  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  from  "  entering"  the  kingdom,  was  their  pride,  their  self- 
exaltation,  their  unbelief,  comp.  Mat.  23:  5-14;  Jonn  5:  49  ;  while 
those  who  in  childlike  submission  and  humility,  "■'  believed"  the  gos- 
pel, "  entered  it  before  them,"  Mat.  21 :  31,  32 ; — a  striking  illustration 
of  the  truth  of  the  declaration,  "  Except  ye  be  co7iverted  and  become 
as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :"  that 
is,  it  is  only  on  these  conditions  that  membership  in  it  can  be  attain- 
ed; that  its  peculiar  privileges  can  be  enjoyed. 

G. 

From  various  passages  in  the  New  Testament  it  appears  that  in  the 
minds  of  the  primitive  Christians  spiritual  cleansing  and  regeneration 
were  intimately  associated.  Both  were  involved  in  a  likeness  to  God, 
1  John  2:  29;  3:  3,  9;  5:  18.  Both  were  effected  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  truth,  1  Pet.  1  :  22,  23.  And  in  Tit.  3 :  .5,  the  change 
which  they  indicate  is  represented  as  being  in  reality  "  the  washing  of 
regeneration."  This  is  further  described  in  Eph.  5:  26,  as  ''the 
washing  of  water  f  not  an  external  washing;  but  a  washing,  which, 
like  regeneration,  is  "  by  the  word,"  through  the  agency  of  God. 
Comp.  Jas.  1 :  18  ;  1  Pet.  1 :  23.  In  accordance  with  this  same  mode 
of  representation  our  Lord,  speaking  of  his  disciples  as  united  to  him, 
says,  "  Ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I  have  spoken  to  you." 
John  15  :  3.  "  Ye  are  clean,  hut  not  all."  "  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou 
hast  no  part  with  me."     John  13:  8,  10. 

It  thus  appears  that  in  the  style  of  the  New  Testament  one  who  is 
unregenerated'ism  a  state  oi  movaX pollution ;  and  it  is  this  pollution 
that  renders  regeneration  necessary.  Hence  our  Lord,  (John  3 :  5),  in 
showing  Nicodemus  that  it  is  requisite  that  all  who  enter  the  kingdom 
of  God  should  be  born  again,  very  naturally  uses  language  which  is 
adapted  to  suggest  the  reason  or  occasion  for  this  requisition.  He  in- 
timates that  it  is  no  arbitrary  requirement,  like  a  second  physical 
birth :  that  which  gives  occasion  for  it  is  man's  inherent  depravity  or 
pollution:  he  must  consequently  be  born,  not  "  of  the  flesh,"  but  of 
that  by  which  his  pollution  may  be  washed  away,  in  metaphorical  lan- 
guage "  of  water  ;"  and,  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  still  more  clearly 
that  the  reference  is<  exclusively  to  the  mind,  it  is  added,  "  and  of  the 
Spirit ;"  or  briefly,  "  of  water  and  Spirit,"  i^  vSaroi  ^ai  nvevjiaros ;  of 
that  by  which  the  soul,  not  the  body,  may  be  changed,  that  is,  washed 
from  its  sins,  and  assimilated  to  the  character  of  God.  Hence  it  is 
added,  "That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is 
born  of  the  Spirit  is  Spirit;"  and,  "  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee, 
ye  must  be  born  again.  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou 
hearest   the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  nor 


196  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

whither  it  goeth  ;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit"  i.  e., 
"  born  again."  The  phrase  "  born  again"  in  ver.  7  is  evidently  used  to 
denote  what  is  meant  in  ver.  .'),  by  being  "born  of  water  and  Spirit;" 
and  yet  in  ver.  8  it  is  exchanged  for  the  simple  expression,  "  born  of 
the  Spirit ;" — as  if  it  had  been  said,  'To  be  ''  born  again"  is  to  be  born, 
not  indeed  of  the  flesh,  but  "of  water  and  Spirit,"  i.  e,,  it  is  to  be 
"  born  of  the  Spirit,"  through  whose  agency  the  soul  is  freed  from  its 
pollution,  and  renewed  in  holiness ;' — a  change  which  is  described  in 
Tit.  3:5,  as  the  "  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.'' 

Examples  in  which  terms  or  phrases  are  used  with  a  figurative  ap- 
plication, which  except  for  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were 
uttered,  or  the  nature  of  the  subject  to  which  they  relate,  would  natu- 
rally be  taken  in  their  literal  acceptation,  are  of  frequent  occurrence 
in  the  discourses  of  Christ ;  and  we  know  that  not  unfrequently  the 
literal  sense  was  the  one  actually  attached  to  them  by  those  whom  he 
addressed.  See  John  4:  10,  11  ;  13:  S,  9,  where  the  identical  term 
or  figure  under  examination,  is  employed.  See  also  John  7:  37-39; 
6:  51-60;  2:  9-11  ;  11:  11-13;  Mat.  16:  6-12;  Eph.  5 :  26  ;  etc. 

The  position  that  there  is  in  John  3  :  5,  allusion  to  Christian  bap- 
tism, is,  we  think,  liable  to  insuperable  objections,  which,  however, 
our  limits  will  not  allow  us  particularly  to  notice.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
that  the  circumstances  under  which  the  language  is  introduced,  the 
object  for  which  it  is  apparently  used,  the  nature  of  the  subject  under 
discussion,  the  form  of  the  expression,  its  relation  to  the  context,  a 
comparison  of  verses  3,  5,  7  and  8,  as  well  as  the  analogy  of  parallel 
passages,  as  Mat.  5:  19,20;  18:  3,  4;  Mark  10:  15;  etc."^  all,  seem  to 
forbid  the  supposition. 

But  even  were  we  to  admit  that  the  reference  is  to  baptism,  and  that 
the  phrase  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  is  to  be  taken  in  such  a  sense  as  to 
include  specifically  the  visible  church,  the  admission  would  not  affect 
the  argument  which  we  have  derived  from  the  passage  in  refutation  of 
the  principles  of  pedobaptism.  It  would  still  be  obvious  that  no  one 
can  properly  be  recognized  as  a  member  of  Christ's  kingdom  until  he 
gives  evidence  that  he  is  "  born  again,"  and  that,  too,  "  of  the  Spirit." 
The  position  that  natural  generation,  or  being  "  born  of  the  flesh,"  is 
insufficient  to  membership,  would  be  unaffected.  And  to  introduce 
into  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  those  who  have  never  been  born  of 
the  Spirit,  and  who  lo  not,  consequently,  belong  to  his  kingdom,  to 
apply  the  rite  of  public  recognition  to  those  who  are  not  by  virtue  of  a 
new  and  spiritual  birth,  in  reality  entitled  to  membership,  would  be 
equally  inconsistent  and  presumptuous,  as  in  case  it  were  admitted  that 
the  being  born  of  water  denotes,  not  baptism,  but  "  the  washing  of  re- 
generation,"— the  passage  being  regarded  as  parallel  with  Tit.  3  :  5. 

H. 

It  may  be  expected,  perhaps,  that  in  an  examination  of  the  passages 
in  the  New  Testament  which  relate  to  the  principles  of  pedobaptism, 
allusion  should  be  made  to  1  Cor.  7:  14; — "For  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band is  sanctified  in(ti/)  the  wife  ;  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sancti- 
fied in  the  husband:  otherwise  your  children  were  unclean;  but  now 
they  are  holy."  Before  proceeding  to  state  what  we  consider  to  be  the 
true  sense  of  this  passage,  we  observe,  that  if  the  interpretation  usually 


APPENDIX.  197 

claimed  for  it  by  Pedobaptists,  be  correct,  it  is  in  more  respects  than 
one  a  direct  refutation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  their  system. 

1.  The  passage  expressly  teaches  that  the  christian  is  not  authorized 
by  virtue  of  his  relation  to  Abraham  or  to  the  Christian  church,  to  con- 
sider his  children  "holy."  Their  holiness,  as  here  stated,  depends, 
not  on  the  faith  or  privileges  or  relationship  of  the  believing  parent; 
but  upon  the  "  sanctification"  of  the  unbelieving.  Without  this  they 
would  be  "  unclean," — "  cut  off,"  adds  Mr.  Hall,  "from  the  common- 
wealth of  Christ's  church,  and  debarred  from  the  seal  of  the  covenant." 
But  is  this  the  position  that  Pedobaptists  really  intend  to  assume  ?  Do 
they  wish  to  be  understood  as  maintaining  that  both  of  the  parents 
must  be  in  a  sense  Christians,  or  in  some  undefinable  manner  "  sanctifi- 
ed," as  the  only  condition  on  which  the  children  can  be  entitled  to  the 
privileges  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  ?  that,  in  other  words,  the 
simple  fact  of  relationship  to  Abraham  by  faith  on  the  part  of  a  chris- 
tian parent,  does  not  in  itself  give  his  oflspring  a  right  to  baptism  and 
church  membership.  If  so,  the  ground  on  which  pedobaptism  is 
mainly  defended,  is,  of  course,  abandoned.  If  not,  their  claim  to  this 
passage  as  furnishing  an  argument  for  its  support,  must  be  relinquish- 
ed. We  call  attention  particularly  to  the  fact  that  according  to  the 
representation  of  this  passage,  the  holiness  ofthe  children  depends  no<, 
as  pedobaptism  assumes,  on  the  character  or  relations  of  the  believing 
parent,  but  on  the  circumstance  that  the  unbelieving  parent  is  sancti- 
fied.    But 

2.  On  the  admission  that  this  ''  holiness"  or  "  sanctification,"  pos- 
sessed on  the  condition  stated,  involves  a  right  to  certain  special  reli- 
gious privileges,  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  baptism  is  not  included 
among  the  privileges  involved  ;  that,  in  fact,  the  requisite  title  to  them 
is  enjoyed  in  cases  where  baptism  would  be  manifestly  improper.  Pedo- 
baptism assumes  that  the  children  of  Christians,  although  unbelievers, 
are  in  a  jieculiar  sense  "  holy,"  and  therefore,  in  distinction  from 
other  unbelievers,  entitled  to  baptism.  The  apostle,  however, — that 
is,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Pedobaptist  exposition  of  the  passage 
be  correct, — takes  a  position  directly  the  opposite  ;  he  teaches  that 
this  "holiness"  or  "sanctification"  is  not  peculiar  to  them;  that  it 
extends  equally  to  a  relation  of  life  where  it  is  admitted  it  has  no  con- 
nexion with  qualifications  for  baptism.  It  is,  of  course,  involved,  that 
if  the  children  of  christians  are  baptized,  it  must  be  for  some  other 
reason  than  simply  that  they  are  "  holy"  or  "sanctified;"  in  a  word, 
that  the  assumption  on  which  theii  right  to  baptism  is  predicated,  is 
without  foundation.  If  a  mere  assumption  in  matters  affecting  the 
ordinances  of  the  gospel,  might,  under  any  circumstances,  be  excused, 
there  certainly  can  be  no  ground  for  an  excuse  in  cases  in  which,  like 
the  present,  there  is  direct  scriptural  proof  that  the  assumption  is  utterly 
groundless. 

The  true  interpretation  of  this  passage  depends  mainly,  we  imagine, 
on  a  right  decision  of  the  question,  whether  the  apostle  intends  to 
assert,  that  upon  the  conversion  of  one  of  the  parties  in  a  marriage 
connexion,  some  influence  is  exerted  on  the  one  yet  unconverted,  by 
which  the  latter  becomes  sanctified  ;  and  that  on  this  ground  it  is  suit- 
able that  they  should  continue  together ;  while  without  this,  not  only 
might  a  separation  properly  take  place,  but  their  children  would  be 

17* 


198  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

uncleaii.    Against  this  position  we  think  there  are  insuperable  objec- 
tions. 

1.  It  seems  not  to  accord  with  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  respect- 
ing the  sacredness  and  perpetuity  of  the  marriage  connexion.  It  can 
hardly  be  supposed  that  the  apostle,  after  referring  expressly  to  the 
teaching  of  Christ  upon  this  point,  in  verses  10  and  11,  should  repre- 
sent the  propriety  of  the  parties  continuing  together,  as  depending, 
not  on  the  essential  nature  of  the  relation  existing  between  them ;  not 
on  the  ground,  that  the  connexion  having  once  been  formed,  they 
should  continue  in  the  enjoyment  of  it,  but  on  the  mere  circuinstance 
that  the  unbelieving  partner  becomes  sanctified  ;  on  the  condition  that 
a  change  is  effected  in  his  or  her  state  or  character. 

2.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  sense  in  which  one  continuing  an 
unbeliever  can  be  said  to  be  properly  sanctified  by  a  believing  partner, 
and  especially,  in  such  a  manner  that  for  that  reason  their  children 
shall  not  be  unclean. 

3.  The  form  lyyiao-rai,  perf.  pass.,  while  it  does  notrequire  the  trans- 
lation,'Aasfieen  sanctified,'  seems,  nevertheless,  more  naturally  to  in- 
dicate a  state  which  the  subject  already  enjoys,  than  an  influence  by 
which  he  becomes  sanctified.  It  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that  the  be- 
lieving partner  is  not  designated  as  a  believer  : — it  is  simply,  "the 
wife,"  "  the  husband." 

It  will  be  observed,  that  what  constitutes  the  children  "  holy,"  or 
more  strictly,  that  by  virtue  of  which  they  are  not  "  unclean,"  is  the 
same  as  that  which  renders  it  proper  for  the  parents  to  continue  to- 
gether. And  we  ask.  Is  not  this  in  reality  the  sacredness  or  sanctity 
of  their  matrimonial  relation?  A  little  examination  will,  we  believe, 
render  it  obvious,  that  this  is  the  identical  reason  assigned  by  the  apos- 
tle for  the  continuance  of  the  union.  His  position  is  evidently  this: — 
'  Let  there  be  no  separation  ;  for  the  husband,  although  an  unbeliever, 
is  sanctified,  is  in  a  condition  of  sanctity,  (I'/yiajrai),  not,  indeed,  in  his 
individual  character,  not  in  his  relations  to  God,  or  to  the  Christian 
church,  but  inthewife,  i.  e.,  as  viewed  in  her,  in  his  connexion  with 
her,  as  a  husband,  (Comp.  Philem.  10  ;  2  Cor.  G  :  12  ;  etc.) ;  the  rela- 
tion which  exists  between  them  is  a  sanctified  relation,  one  which  ex- 
ists in  accordance  with  the  appointment  of  God  ; — let  it,  therefore,  be 
continued.  And  so  the  wife,  although  an  unbeliever,  is  in  a  condition 
of  sanctity  with  respect  to  the  husband.  Were  it  otherwise,  were  the 
connexion  an  unsanctifiedor  sinful  one,  it  would  follow  that  your  chil- 
dren, the  fruit  of  such,  and  of  all  similar  connexions,  would  be  un- 
clean, the  offspring  of  impurity  ;  but  as  it  is  {vvv),  they  are  holy,  i.  e., 
not  unclean ;  they  are  the  offspring  of  a  pure  and  lawful  intercourse.' 

The  use  of  the  terms  "  unclean"  and  "  holy"  or  "  pure,"  implies  that 
the  purity  or  impurity  attributable  to  the  parents  would  naturally  be 
attached  to  the  character  of  the  children,  or  rather  to  their  reputation, 
to  the  estimation  in  which  they  would  generally  be  regarded.  It  is 
not  improbable,  moreover,  that  there  may  be  allusion  to  the  regulation 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  according  to  which  an  illegitimate  chihl  was  cere- 
monially \mclean. 

In  using  the  expression,  "-^  your  chiklrcn,"  the  apostle  may  have  in- 
tended to  intimate  that  the  connexion  of  which  he  was  speaking,  was 
in  reahty  the  same  as  existed  on  the  part  of  most  parents  in  the  church, 
a  connexion  which  had  been  formed  before  they  became  Christians. 
The  argument  of  the  apostle  is  constructed  on  the  general  principle 


APPENDIX.  199 

stated  in  verses  10  and  11,  that  the  marriage  connexion  is  in  its  very 
nature  perpetual  ;  that  once  formed  it  is  formed  for  life.  He  well 
knew  that  the  Corinthian  Christians  would  shrink  from  the  admission 
that  all  marriage  connexions  among  them  formed  previously  to  their 
conversion  to  Christianity,  were  of  no  account,  were  unlawful,  were 
not  sanctioned  by  God  ;  and  that  consequently  they  were  living  in  im- 
purity, and  their  children  were  illegitimate.  But,  urges  the  apostle,  if 
this  be  not  the  case,  if  such  connexions  are  really  marriage  connex- 
ions, not  only  is  there  no  impropriety  in  their  continuance,  but  it  is 
the  duty  of  those  concerned,  to  avoid  a  disruption.  Comp.  verses  13 
and  14. 

I. 

There  is  a  passage  in  the  writings  of  Irenseus,  A.  D.  178,  which  has 
been  claimed  as  alluding  to  the  baptism  of  infants.  Speaking  of  Christ, 
he  says,  "  He  came  to  save  all  by  himself, — all,  I  say,  who  through  him 
are  regenerated  unto  God,  infants,  and  little  children,  and  lads,  and 
youth,  and  the  more  aged."  It  has,  however,  been  shown  on  the 
most  satisfactory  grounds,  that  there  is  in  the  passage  no  allusion  what- 
ever to  baptism.*  "  The  phrase  '  regenerated  through  Christ  unto 
God,'"  says  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Review,  "if  it  mean,  'the 
general  recovery  of  man  through  Christ's  incarnation  and  redemption,' 
has  numerous  parallels  in  the  writings  of  IrenEeus ;  if  it  mean,  '  bapti- 
zed through  Christ  unto  God,'  it  has  tio  pzrsillel, absolutely  none ." 

Respecting  the  testimony  of  Origen,  A.  D.  230,  who  speaks  of  the 
baptism  of  "  little  ones," — if,  indeed,  the  Latin  translation  or  para- 
phrase of  his  works  may  be  trusted, — as  being  an  apostolic  "  tradi- 
tion," it  might  suffice  that  we  refer  to  the  following  remarks  of  Nean- 
der, — "His  words  in  that  age  cannot  have  much  weight,  for  whatever 
was  regarded  as  important,  was  alleged  to  be  from  the  apostles.  Be- 
sides, many  walls  of  partition  intervened  between  this  age  and  that  of 
the  apostles,  to  intercept  the  view." 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  however,  that  Origen,  although  he  evidently 
refers  to  infants  who  had  not  arrived  to  years  of  understanding,  does 
not  designate  them  as  such.  He  simply  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  little 
ones,  little  children,  "  parvuli,"  a.  term  including  in  its  signification 
children  sufficiently  advanced  in  age  to  receive  instruction,  and  become 
the  subjects  of  religious  impressions.  Irenaeus,  in  the  passage  just 
quoted,  expressly  distinguishes  between  "  little  children"  (parvuli), 
and  "  infants"  (infantes).  It  had  doubtless  been  a  practice  among  the 
churches  to  admit  to  baptism  all  who  were  supposed  to  be  savingly  ac- 
quainted with  the  gospel,  without  respect  to  age.  In  this  number  it 
could  hardly  fail  that  children  of  tender  years  would  frequently  be 
included.  Such  were  the  views  of  Origen,  however,  respecting  the 
design  of  baptism,  that  he  would  naturally  associate  these  with  uncon- 
scious infants.  He  believed  there  was  "  in  all,  the  natural  pollution  of 
sin,  which  must  be  done  away  by  water  and  the  Spirit."  It  was  on 
this  account  that  "little  children"  were  to  be  baptized.  This  was,  in 
a  general  view,  the  reason  for  their  baptism,  even  though  they  were 
capable  of  understanding  and  embracing  the  gospel ;  and  the  same, 

*  See  Christian  Review,  Vol.  III.,  p.  213. 


200  CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM. 

though  they  might  yet  be  in  early  infancy.     In  his  conception  they  all 

belonged, — and  especially  in  as  far  as  any  reason  for  their  baptism  was 
concerned, — to  the  same  class.  And  hence  he  would  naturally  con- 
sider the  practice  of  the  church  in  baptizing  any  of  the  class,  as  au- 
thority for  applying  the  rite  to  all  without  distinction.  The  allusion 
of  Origen  to  the  baptism  of  "little  children,"  as  being  an  apostolic 
"  tradition,"  is  consequently,  even  should  we  allow  his  testimony  all 
the  force  that  is  sometimes  claimed  for  it;  no  proof  of  the  antiquity  of 
the  baptism  of  unconscious  infants.  It  is  proof,  however,  clear  and 
decisive,  of  the  connexion  between  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  and 
the  prevalence  of  the  sentiment  that  baptism  is  efficacious  in  "  remo- 
ving the  pollution  of  sin."  It  shows  that  the  practice  is  the  legitimate 
fruit  of  the  doctrine, — a  doctrine  which  Origen,  for  the  sake  of  giving 
it  authority,  presumed  to  ascribe  to  "  the  apostles."  As  his  testimony, 
however,  is  considered  by  evangelical  Christians  to  be  of  no  weight  in 
proving  the  doctrine  apostolic,  it  is,  in  any  view,  of  as  little  avail  in 
showing  that  the  practice  originated  in  apostolic  tradition. 


"  As  to  the  simple  inquiry,"  says  Prof.  Ripley,  "  whether  these  men, 
(Acts  19  :  1-7,)  were  baptized  anew,  an  affirmative  answer  seems  un- 
avoidable, if  we  follow  the  most  obvious  and  natural  meaning  of  the 
passage,  as  conveyed  both  in  our  translation  and  in  the  original  Greek." 
It  may  also  be  added,  that  we  should  hardly  expect  that  the  phraseology 
"  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  would  be  used 
with  reference  to  those  who  were  baptized  previously  to  the  manifest- 
ation of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.     Comp.  John  1  :  31,  33. 

The  passage,  in  any  view  of  the  case,  is  of  no  avail  in  proving  that 
John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism.  There  is  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  these  twelve  "  disciples"  had  been  baptized  subsequently  to 
the  death  of  John,  and  consequently  after  John's  baptism  as  such  had 
become  a  nullity. 

1.  Their  baptism  is  sufficiently  accounted  for  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter. Apollos  had  been  at  Ephcsus  preaching  "  the  baptism  of  John." 
And  as  he  doubtless  presented  it  as  a  duty,  those  who  became  converted 
to  his  doctrine  would  naturally  be  baptized.  After  Apollos  had  left 
the  city,  Paul,  upon  arriving  thither,  finds  certain  men  who  had  re- 
ceived "  John's  baptism."  The  natural,  the  almost  unavoidable  con- 
clusion, in  the  absence  of  all  proof  to  the  contrary,  is,  that  they  had 
been  baptized  under  the  preaching  of  Apollos.  Why  should  we  sup- 
pose that  they  were  baptized  in  a  distant  country  some  thirty  years 
previously,  when  the  circumstances  which  fully  account  for  their  bap- 
tism at  the  place  of  their  residence,  are  particularly  stated  in  the  im- 
mediate context  in  a  continuous  narrative  of  passing  events  ? 

2.  There  seems  to  be  a  direct  intimation  in  verses  1-3,  that  they  had 
been  baptized  in  connection  with  the  preaching  of  Apollos.  It  is  said 
that  while  Apollos  was  at  Corinth,  Paul  came  to  Ephesus,  and  found 
certain  disciples  who  had  been  baptized  unto  John's  bapti.'un.  The 
reason  for  this  allusion  to  Apollos,  and  to  the  fact  tliat  he  had  left 
Ephesus,  is  evidently  to  be  found  in  the  nature  of  the  facts  about  to  be 
narrated. 

3.  The  interrogation  of  Paul,  "  Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
since  ye  believed  ?"  obviously  implies  that  in  his  apprehension  their 


ERRATA. 


A  few  typographical  errors  have  been  noticed  since  the  sheets 
were  through  the  press.  The  reader  will  please  to  make  the  fol- 
lowing corrections. 

On  page  4,  13th  line,  for  "  or"  read  a. 


"      "  2'Jth 

'       "  arguments"  read  argument 

«     31,  2Gth 

'        "  TrXtiuQj"  read  TrXivco. 

"     51,    1st 

'       "  or,"  read  and. 

"     53,  24th 

'       "right"  read  rite. 

"  177,    8th 

'       "  fact"  read  part. 

197,    9th  line,  before  "  church"  read  visible. 


APPENDIX.  201 

conversion  was  of  recent  date,  at  least  subsequent  to  the  effusion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  season  of  Pentecost;  and  his  impression  is  most 
readily  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  he  had  been  informed  that 
they  had  been  recently  baptized. 

4.  The  remarks  of  Paul  in  ver.  4,  respecting  what  John  taught  "  the 
people,"  are  most  naturally  understood  as  addressed  to  those  who  had 
never  enjoyed  John's  personal  instructions. 

5.  The  ignorance  of  these  men  respecting  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
does  not  accord  with  the  supposition  that  they  had  been  baptized  and 
instructed  by  John,  in  whose  preaching  the  bestowment  of  this  gift  by 
the  Messiah  held  a  prominent  place.  Comp.  Mat.  3:11;  Mark  1:8; 
Johnl:  33. 


OV  t/ki 


rc-iCfS.lv.Xt  — Cli 


